Michael Cates v. Baltimore City Circuit Court

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:18-cv-01398-ELH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000352319]. Mailed to: Michael Cates. [18-6633]

Appeal: 18-6633

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/21/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6633

MICHAEL CATES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT; JUDGE JEANNIE HONG;
BALTIMORE CITY STATE’S ATTORNEY; LISA PHELPS, State’s Attorney;
GOVERNOR LARRY HOGAN,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01398-ELH)

Submitted: August 16, 2018

Decided: August 21, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Cates, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-6633

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/21/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael Cates appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2012) complaint.

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the

Appellant’s brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Because Cates’ informal brief does not

challenge the basis for the district court’s order, Cates has forfeited appellate review of
the court’s judgment. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The
informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited
to issues preserved in that brief.”). To the extent that Cates seeks to raise an independent
claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2012), the
named Defendants are not amenable to such suit. See Baird ex rel. Baird v. Rose, 192
F.3d 462, 472 (4th Cir. 1999). 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

2