Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Redmond HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daryl MCCREADY, Senior Pastor at Sonrise Church (Berlin); Bryan Matthew Lloyd, Pastor at Salisbury, MD Sonrise Church; Mark Aaron Thomas, Pastor at Princess Anne, MD Sonrise Church; Michael Duane Rittenhouse; Jared Mylon Rittenhouse, Defendants-Appellees.
Redmond Howard, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daryl McCready, Senior Pastor at Sonrise Church (Berlin); Bryan Matthew Lloyd, Pastor at Salisbury, MD Sonrise Church; Mark Aaron Thomas, Pastor at Princess Anne, MD Sonrise Church; Michael Duane Rittenhouse; Jared Mylon Rittenhouse, Defendants-Appellees.
In these consolidated cases, Redmond Howard appeals the district court's order dismissing his second amended civil complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Howard's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Howard 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 deny as unnecessary both Howard's motion to file supplemental materials and Appellees’ motion to strike the proposed supplemental materials. 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:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-1016, No. 18-1092
Decided: May 29, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)