CALVIN TYRONE NORTON v. CITY OF WHITEVILLE DARREN CURRIE TERRY MANN RACHEL RIVENBARK TRACEY CARTER ELIJAH KEMP JEFFERSON WEAVER THE NEWS REPORTER COMPANY INCORPORATED (2017)

Calvin Tyrone Norton appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. Defendants' motions to dismiss were properly construed as motions for judgment on the pleadings. See Burbach Broad. Co. of Del. v. Elkins Radio Corp., 278 F.3d 401, 405 (4th Cir. 2002). Thus, we review the district court's ruling on those motions de novo, applying the same standard used in evaluating a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, 819 F.3d 697, 705 (4th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1202 (2017); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007) (describing standard of review).

On appeal, we limit our review to the issues raised in Norton's informal brief. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). Our review of the record reveals no reversible error in the district court's dismissal of Norton's Fourth Amendment claim. See Alvarez v. Montgomery County, 147 F.3d 354, 358 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Taylor v. Mich. Dep't of Nat. Res., 502 F.3d 452, 454-57 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. Weston, 443 F.3d 661, 667 (8th Cir. 2006). Nor do we find error in the district court's dismissal of Norton's Sixth Amendment claim. See United States v. Zucker, 161 U.S. 475, 481 (1896); Al-Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 879 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

Norton also challenges the district court's dismissal of his claims against The News Reporter, Inc. and Jefferson Weaver. The district court correctly concluded that Norton failed to allege a basis for § 1983 liability against these Defendants. See Phillips v. Pitt Cty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 181 (4th Cir. 2009); Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 615-16 (4th Cir. 2009). Further, the court appropriately declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Norton's state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2012); Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 110 (4th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we 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

PER CURIAM: