UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7687
SIMON ALLEN, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN LOUIS,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
GREENWOOD COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT; GREENWOOD SOLICITOR,
Office; B. WARE; N. FUTCH; R. COKER; TONY DAVIS; LONNIE
SMITH; RONNIE POWELL; C. RAYAN JOHNSON; WALTER RUTLEDGE;
BROOKS; WILLIAM KAY; DAVID M. STUMBO,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (8:15-cv-00363-RMG)
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 1, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Simon Allen, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Carly Marie Harter, Russell
W. Harter, Jr., CHAPMAN, HARTER & HARTER, PA, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Simon Allen, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Allen’s
motion for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief and
grant Louis summary judgment on Allen’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
claim against Louis. * Allen’s failure to challenge on appeal the
district court’s dispositive holdings amounts to a waiver of
appellate review of those holdings. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The
Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal
brief.”); United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th
Cir. 2004) (“It is a well settled rule that contentions not
raised in the argument section of the opening brief are
abandoned.”). Because we find no reversible error by the
district court, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Allen
v. Louis, No. 8:15-cv-00363-RMG (D.S.C. Oct. 16, 2015). 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
* The district court previously dismissed, without
prejudice, Allen’s claims against the remaining Defendants.
Allen does not challenge this prior order on appeal.
3