PIERCE EL BEY v. STEIN BJ (2018)

Tornello Fontaine Pierce El Bey appeals the district court's order dismissing his amended complaint with prejudice. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Pierce El Bey's informal brief does not raise any specific challenge to the basis for the district court's disposition of the merits of his claims, Pierce El Bey has forfeited appellate review of the court's order.^* See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   We conclude that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction as Pierce El Bey's false arrest claim should have been raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). We further reject Pierce El Bey's conclusory assertion that the district judge was biased. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.