James David Nanney v. DAVID BOYLE, Counsel of Record

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6852
JAMES DAVID NANNEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BOYLE, Counsel of Record,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cv-00171-MR-WCM)
Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023
Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James David Nanney, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
James David Nanney appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, we confine our review
to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Nanney’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. Nanney v. Boyle, No. 1:23-cv-00171-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C.
Aug. 14, 2023). 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 --