Ken Gryder v. HCL America

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000073151-2] Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00246-LMB-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000127872]. Mailed to: Ken Gryder. [17-1387]

Appeal: 17-1387

Doc: 15

Filed: 07/31/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1387

KEN GRYDER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HCL AMERICA; ADRIENNE KENNDY,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00246-LMB-JFA)

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ken Gryder, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Lynn Vossler, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1387

Doc: 15

Filed: 07/31/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Ken Gryder appeals the district court’s order dismissing Gryder’s civil claims
against Defendants after reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012).
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gryder’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the
district court’s dispositive rulings, Gryder has forfeited appellate review of the district
court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004);
see also Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (failure to
raise issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue).

Accordingly,

although we grant Gryder’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the
district court’s order. See Gryder v. HCL America, No. 1:17-cv-00246-LMB-JFA (E.D.
Va. Mar. 8, 2017).

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