Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Charles Williams v. Josh Christenson, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Charles A. Williams' appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that Williams did not challenge in his informal brief the basis for the district court's disposition, thereby forfeiting appellate review. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-02-19 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7711

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Charles A. Williams' appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that Williams did not challenge in his informal brief the basis for the district court's disposition, thereby forfeiting appellate review. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented.

    Copyright:

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

    Charles Williams v. Josh Christenson, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding Charles A. Williams' appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that Williams did not challenge in his informal brief the basis for the district court's disposition, thereby forfeiting appellate review. The Fourth Circuit dispensed with oral argument, determining the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7711

    CHARLES A. WILLIAMS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JOSH CHRISTENSON, Harnett County Sheriff's Office; WILLIAM
    COATS, Angier Police Department; ADAM DUNN, Johnston County
    Sheriff's Office; JEFFREY CANADY, Johnston County Sheriff's
    Office,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:14-ct-03089-F)

    Submitted:

    February 12, 2015

    Decided:

    February 19, 2015

    Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Charles A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Charles A. Williams appeals the district courts order
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2012) complaint.
    confine

    our

    brief.
    challenge

    review

    to

    the

    See

    4th

    Cir.

    R.

    in

    his

    informal

    issues
    34(b).
    brief

    raised

    in

    Because
    the

    On appeal, we

    the

    Appellants

    Williams

    basis

    for

    does

    the

    not

    district

    courts disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the


    courts

    order.

    judgment.
    legal
    before

    Accordingly,

    we

    affirm

    the

    district

    courts

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like