Clarence Andrews, Jr. v. Ditech Mortgage Corp.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00631-JAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000087937]. Mailed to: Clarence Andrews, Jr. [17-1088]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1088 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/25/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1088 CLARENCE ANDREWS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DITECH MORTGAGE CORP.; DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00631-JAG) Submitted: May 23, 2017 Decided: May 25, 2017 Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Andrews, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan S. Hubbard, David Tony Long, Jr., Sarah Warren Smith, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-1088 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/25/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Clarence Andrews, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for failure to comply with the court’s order directing him to amend his complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Andrews’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Andrews 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 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?