Machuei Angoon v. Federal Government

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000043512-2]. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00812-MHL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000127998]. Mailed to: Machuei Angoon. [17-1281]

Appeal: 17-1281

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/31/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1281

MACHUEI T. ANGOON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HOMELAND SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:16-cv-00812-MHL)

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Machuei T. Angoon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1281

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/31/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Machuei T. Angoon appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil
complaint for failure to comply with the court’s prior order and denying his motion for
appointment of counsel as moot. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in
the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Angoon’s informal brief does not
challenge the district court’s conclusion that he failed to comply with the court’s prior
order directing him to file an amended complaint particularizing his claims, Angoon has
forfeited appellate review of the court’s dispositive procedural ruling. See Williams v.
Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).

Although Angoon has

challenged the court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel, we conclude that
the court properly denied the motion as moot when it dismissed Angoon’s complaint.
Accordingly, we deny Angoon’s pending motion for appointment of counsel and
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