UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7284
FARLEY L. BERNARD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
NURSE HOBBS; VIRGINIA SUE DAWSON,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
GERALD BRANKER; CHAPLAIN SPEARS; CHAPLAIN MONTGOMERY;
ROBERT C. LEWIS; KERRY MASSEY; SGT. BENNETT; HATTIE B.
PIMPONG; CARL E. BATTLE; MRS. SMITH; RENOICE STANCIL;
EDWARD B. THOMAS; DONNIE R. RAYNOR; A. JAMES; R. LEE; NURSE
WATSON; DR. WILLIAMS; MARY S. POLLARD,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-ct-03164-D)
Submitted: December 27, 2012 Decided: January 16, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Farley L. Bernard, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Farley L. Bernard appeals the district court’s January
12, 2012 order denying his motions for reconsideration, to amend
his complaint, for a preliminary injunction, and for appointment
of counsel and directing Defendants Hobbs and Dawson to file a
response to his motion to compel discovery, its May 9, 2012
order denying his motions for reconsideration and leave to amend
and granting in part his motion to compel discovery, and its
July 18, 2012 order granting Hobbs’ and Dawson’s summary
judgment motion and denying Bernard leave to depose in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Bernard’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s
denial of his motions for reconsideration, to amend, for a
preliminary injunction, and for leave to depose or its rulings
directing Hobbs and Dawson to respond to his motion to compel
and granting the motion to compel in part, Bernard has forfeited
appellate review of those rulings.
With respect to the district court’s rulings denying
Bernard’s motions for appointment of counsel and granting Hobbs’
and Dawson’s summary judgment motion, we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Bernard v. Hobbs,
3
No. 5:10-ct-03164-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 12 & July 18, 2012). 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