Lynda DeLellis v. Maude Rumple


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00945-CCE-JEP. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000087970]. [17-1084]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1084 Doc: 15 Filed: 05/25/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1084 LYNDA J. DELELLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MAUDE RUMPLE; ROBERT B. TUCKER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00945-CCE-JEP) Submitted: May 23, 2017 Decided: May 25, 2017 Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lynda J. DeLellis, Appellant Pro Se. Kirby Todd Phillips, HARTSELL & WILLIAMS, P.A., Concord, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-1084 Doc: 15 Filed: 05/25/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Lynda J. DeLellis appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman * doctrine, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012), and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because DeLellis’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition of her complaint and motion, DeLellis has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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 * D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). 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?