John Stritzinger v. Bank of America

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999888127-2] Originating case number: 3:15-cv-01469-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999901006]. Mailed to: J Stritzinger. [16-1613]

Appeal: 16-1613

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1613

JOHN S. STRITZINGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA; VERNON MC WRIGHT; CHARLES HOLLIDAY; BRIAN
MOYNIHAN; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WALTER MASSEY,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
WILLIAM MASSEY; OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES; OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (3:15-cv-01469-TLW)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John S. Stritzinger, Appellant Pro Se.

and

August 1, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 16-1613

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1613

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
John
adopting

Stritzinger
the

complaint.
raised

in

Because
basis

magistrate
On

the

appeal,

the

the

judge’s
we

Appellant’s

Stritzinger’s

for

appeals

our

brief.
brief

court’s

court’s

recommendation

confine

informal

district

district

See

order

dismissing

his

review

to

the

issues

4th

Cir.

R.

34(b).

does

not

disposition,

challenge

the

Stritzinger

has

forfeited appellate review of the court’s order.

See Williams

v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and deny
Stritzinger’s motion to appoint counsel.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3