The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
22-6645•Wendell J. Lemaitre v. DONALD GRINDSTAFF, Captain - Mountain View Correctional Institution
22-6645Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 23, 2022
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6645
WENDELL J. LEMAITRE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DONALD GRINDSTAFF, Captain - Mountain View Correctional Institution;
ADAM HUGHES, Sergeant - Mountain View Correctional Institution; JOHN
KING, Corrections Officer - Mountain View Correctional Institution; TOMMY
HARRIS, a/k/a T. Harris, Correctional Officer - Mountain View Correctional
Institution,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-00068-MR)
Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 23, 2022
Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wendell J. LeMaitre, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Wendell J. LeMaitre appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants summary
judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because LeMaitre’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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.