UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2224
JOHN D. BRANTLEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MD-UMES,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-2228
JOHN D. BRANTLEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MD-OAG,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 15-2229
JOHN D. BRANTLEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MD BALTIMORE CITY DISTRICT COURT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-02934-RDB; 1:15-cv-02935-RDB; 1:15-cv-02936-RDB).
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 7, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John D. Brantley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
John D. Brantley appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his cases as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. *
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Brantley’s
informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s disposition, Brantley has forfeited appellate review of
the court’s order. Accordingly, we deny Brantley’s “motion to
pass and award judgment” and 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
*
D.C. Cir. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v.
Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923).
3