Todd Lynn Parkin v. DR. TONY BALDWIN, Superintendent of the Buncombe County School District (BCS)

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2303
TODD LYNN PARKIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DR. TONY BALDWIN, Superintendent of the Buncombe County School District
(BCS); DAVID THOMPSON, BCS Director of Student Services and 504
Coordinator; CONNIE DENNING, IEP team member, BCS Assistant EC
(Exceptional Children’s) Director; KAREN BARNHILL, IEP team member, BCS
Principal of Enka Middle School, formerly Principal of Cane Creek Middle School
(CCMS); DIANE MCENTIRE, IEP team member, BCS Assistant Principal of Enka
Middle School, formerly Assistant Principal of CCMS; GINA SCHWEITZER, IEP
team member, II Intensive Intervention (special education) teacher for BCS at
CCMS; MELANIE RAMSEY, IEP team member, Director and Principal of the
Progressive Education Program (PEP); BUNCOMBE COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00261-MR-DCK)
Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 27, 2023
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Todd Lynn Parkin, Appellant Pro Se. Ashley Frances Leonard, CAMPBELL SHATLEY,
PLLC, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Todd Lynn Parkin appeals the district court’s order adopting in part a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and
dismissing Parkin’s complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in
the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Parkin’s informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of
the court’s order. 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.”). 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 of 3 --