Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rose Powell v. Tony Keller, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    1) Rose Powell appealed the district court's dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim against multiple defendants. 2) On appeal, the court confined its review to issues raised in Powell's informal brief. 3) Because Powell's brief did not challenge the basis for the district court's dismissal, she forfeited appellate review of the district court's order. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-02-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-1926

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Rose Powell appealed the district court's dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim against multiple defendants. 2) On appeal, the court confined its review to issues raised in Powell's informal brief. 3) Because Powell's brief did not challenge the basis for the district court's dismissal, she forfeited appellate review of the district court's order. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views2 pages

    Rose Powell v. Tony Keller, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Rose Powell appealed the district court's dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim against multiple defendants. 2) On appeal, the court confined its review to issues raised in Powell's informal brief. 3) Because Powell's brief did not challenge the basis for the district court's dismissal, she forfeited appellate review of the district court's order. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-1926

    ROSE C. POWELL,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    TONY A. KELLER; JORGE SOSA; JASON COY REID; TIMOTHY JAMES
    BREWER; LARRY WATERS; WILLIAM A. BRAFFORD; GRETCHEN C. F.
    SHAPPERT; RICHARD L. VOORHEES; CARL HORN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE;
    GREGORY A. FOREST; JAYME MILLER; US MARSHAL SERVICE; CATAWBA
    COUNTY; CATAWBA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; SHERIFF OF CATAWBA
    COUNTY;
    CATAWBA
    COUNTY
    SHERIFF'S
    DEPARTMENT;
    COLDWELL
    BANKER; BOYD HASSELL INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES;
    ELVALORIE MATTHEWS; RICHARD MCDONNELL; MARK T. CALLOWAY;
    NEWTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; CONOVER POLICE DEPARTMENT,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00055-GCM)

    Submitted:

    February 16, 2012

    Decided:

    February 21, 2012

    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Rose C. Powell, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Rose

    C.

    Powell

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    dismissing her 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to


    state a claim.

    On appeal, we confine our review to the issues

    raised

    Appellants

    in

    the

    brief.

    See

    4th

    Cir.

    R.

    34(b).

    Because Powells informal brief does not challenge the basis for
    the district courts disposition, she has forfeited appellate
    review

    of

    district

    the

    courts

    courts

    order.

    judgment

    appointment of counsel.

    Accordingly,

    and

    deny

    we

    Powells

    affirm
    motion

    the
    for

    We dispense with oral argument because

    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the


    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like