UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7562
KENNETH H. NEWKIRK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MS. GREEN, Deputy/Transportation; MR. MILTON, Deputy/Law
Library; MR. DICKERSON, Deputy/Classification; MS. J. O.
PERRY, Deputy/Classification; MS. CHEESEBORO, Sergeant/Was
in Records; MR. VOGT, Deputy/Work in the Hole 1-4
Segregation; MS. WILLIAMS, Sergeant/Segregation 1-4; ROY
CHERRY, Superintendent,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:12-cv-00327-HEH)
Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth H. Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth H. Newkirk appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006)
complaint for failure to prosecute. ∗ See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Newkirk’s
informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s disposition, Newkirk has forfeited appellate review of
the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment, deny Newkirk’s motion to be transferred to another
prison and three motions for appointment of counsel, and deny as
moot Newkirk’s motion to withdraw two of his motions for
appointment of counsel. 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 order is final and appealable as something more than
an amendment to the complaint is needed to cure the defects in
Newkirk’s case. See Domino Sugar v. Sugar Workers Local Union
392, F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
2