Michael Greene v. William Sadler

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999915779-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-15723 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000005413]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-7087]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7087 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7087 MICHAEL J. GREENE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM J. SADLER; GEORGE HUFFMAN; SCOTT A. ASH, V. SITLER; WILLIAM O. (BILL) Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-15723) Submitted: December 30, 2016 Decided: January 18, 2017 Before MOTZ, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael J. Greene, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7087 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Michael accepting J. the Greene appeals recommendation of the district the court’s magistrate order judge and dismissing Greene’s complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Greene’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, review of the court’s order. Greene has district court’s appoint counsel. facts and materials legal before appellate See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). the forfeited judgment. We Accordingly, we affirm deny Greene’s motion to We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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?