UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6110
LAWRENCE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
T. O’BRIEN, Warden; CAPTAIN WILSON; LIEUTENANT TREES; J.
GILLEY, Lt.; T. TAYLOR, Corr. Officer; W. WELCH, Corr.
Officer; J. BAKER, Corr. Officer; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER CRUM;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER B. SHOEMAKER; S. WHITE, C.O.;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER L. BISHOP; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER A.
O’QUINN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER T. ROBINSON; R. SMITH, C.O.;
A. RUTHERFORD, RN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:09-cv-00165-JCT-RSB)
Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 20, 2012
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Rick A. Mountcastle, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Johnson appeals the jury verdict entered
against him in his Bivens * action, as well as several of the
district court’s pre-trial and post-judgment orders. With
regard to the jury verdict and the orders denying Johnson’s
motions for appointment of counsel, change of venue,
continuance, and judgment as a matter or law or, alternatively,
a new trial, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Johnson v. O’Brien, No. 7:09-cv-00165-JCT-RSB
(W.D. Va. Apr. 29, 2011; June 9, 2011; June 30, 2011; Sept. 22,
2011; Oct. 17, 2011; Oct. 20, 2011; Nov. 18, 2011; Jan. 12,
2012).
Turning the court’s dismissal of Johnson’s remaining
claims, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Johnson does
not challenge on appeal the court’s reasons for rejecting these
claims, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order.
We therefore affirm the denial of relief.
We deny Johnson’s request for counsel and dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
*
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3