Mark Wayne Ballard v. Marcellus Buchanan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00173-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999894496]. Mailed to: Mark Ballard. [16-6417]

Appeal: 16-6417

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6417

MARK WAYNE BALLARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARCELLUS BUCHANAN; DON GAST, AUSA Asheville, NC; MARTIN
REIDINGER, US District Court Judge at Bryson City, NC;
TIMOTHY S. WOO, US Probation Officer at Asheville, NC;
DENNIS CHRISP; DANNY E. DAVIS; DENNIS HOWELL, US Magistrate
Judge at Bryson City, NC; FNU LNU, F.B.I Agent is employed
as Indian case agent Asheville, NC; DONALD WOLFE, Bureau of
Indian Affairs Investigator at Asheville NC; FNU LNU, Female
Cherokee Tribal Police Officer at Bryson City, NC; JASON
E.B. SMITH; MARK BUCHANAN; JASON HOWELL, Tribal Police
Officer for Cherokee Indian Police Dept. at Bryson City, NC,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (1:15-cv-00173-FDW)

Submitted:

July 21, 2016

Decided:

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Wayne Ballard, Appellant Pro Se.

July 22, 2016

Appeal: 16-6417

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-6417

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/22/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mark

Wayne

Ballard

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying the postjudgment motion for miscellaneous relief that
Ballard filed in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action.

On appeal,

we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s
brief.
does

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
not

challenge

disposition,

the

Ballard

has

court’s order.

court’s judgment.
and

materials

legal
before

basis

for

forfeited

the

district

appellate

review

court’s
of

the

See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423,

430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).

facts

Because Ballard’s informal brief

Accordingly, we affirm the district

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3