UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6353
TRAVIS JACKSON MARRON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN JABE, Asst. Dir. of Corrections,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
JONES, C.E.O./Founder of J.E.M.,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III,
Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-00468-TSE-TRJ)
Submitted: July 30, 2014 Decided: August 26, 2014
Amended: August 28, 2014
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travis Jackson Marron, Appellant Pro Se. Kate Elizabeth
Dwyre, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Travis Jackson Marron appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion to compel discovery and granting
summary judgment to John Jabe * in Marron’s action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5
(2012).
Marron did not appeal that part of the district court’s
order granting summary judgment on his Equal Protection claim.
We therefore do not review the district court’s disposition of
that claim. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“limit[ing] review to the
issues raised in the informal brief”).
Marron argues that the district court erred in failing to
hold Jabe in default. He also contends that the court erred in
not considering his freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
Establishment Clause, and antitrust claims. As to the antitrust
claim, we note that the district court dismissed with prejudice
Marron’s vague claim in his original complaint based on an
unlawful monopoly. We find no error in that judgment. And
because Marron did not properly present the other claims in the
district court, we will not review them now on appeal. Muth v.
United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
*
The district court dismissed a second defendant early on
in the proceeding below, and Marron does not challenge this
disposition on appeal.
3
With respect to Marron’s remaining contentions, we have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Marron v. Jabe, No. 1:12-cv-00468-TSE-TRJ (E.D. Va. Feb.
14, 2014). 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
4