David Gambino v. Frank Hershberger

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:16-cv-03806-TDC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000185370]. Mailed to: D Gambino. [17-6800]

Appeal: 17-6800

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/02/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6800

DAVID A. GAMBINO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FRANK HERSHBERGER, PHD/Chief Psychologist, Federal Correctional
Institution Cumberland; SHANE SHEETZ, PSY/D, Federal Correctional
Institution Cumberland; Mr. EIRICH, Lieutenant, Federal Correctional Institution
Cumberland; BRETT DODD, PSY/D, Federal Correctional Institution
Cumberland; LEON BRYAN, PSY/D, Federal Correctional Institution
Cumberland; 7 UNKNOWN OFFICERS AND 3 UNKNOWN NURSES; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:16-cv-03806-TDC)

Submitted: October 30, 2017

Decided: November 2, 2017

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David A. Gambino, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Elizabeth Andersen, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Appeal: 17-6800

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/02/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-6800

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/02/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David Gambino filed an action in the district court seeking preliminary injunctions
to recover and preserve evidence for use in a future lawsuit against prison officials. The
district court denied the motions and dismissed the complaint because the Government,
once on notice of the potential lawsuit, was already obligated to preserve any existing
evidence and provided documentation that it was complying with that obligation. On
appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir.
R. 34(b). Because Gambino’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s disposition, Gambino 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). In any event, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for injunctive relief
because Gambino failed to demonstrate that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of an injunction. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22
(2008).
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.
AFFIRMED

3