Mark Wayne Ballard v. Marcellus Buchanan


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6417 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6417 MARK WAYNE BALLARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARCELLUS BUCHANAN; DON GAST, AUSA Asheville,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 July 22, 2016 Appeal: 16-6417 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-6417 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Mark Wayne Ballard appeals the district court’s order denying the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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?