Daniel Lanahan v. Patuxent Institution
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-02511-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: appellant. [17-6591]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL THOMAS LANAHAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
PATUXENT INSTITUTION; TANIKA AMASON; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
ANDERSON; UNKNOWN OFFICERS; WARDEN; ASSISTANT WARDEN;
STATE OF MARYLAND; MENTAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT COMPANY;
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-02511-JFM)
Submitted: June 22, 2017
Decided: June 27, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Thomas Lanahan, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant
Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Daniel Thomas Lanahan appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
appointment of counsel, declining to appoint a guardian ad litem, and dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil action as barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal,
we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Because Lanahan’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s
rulings, Lanahan 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, 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.
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?