SCOTT v. MOON (2019)

Melinda Scott seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant's brief must raise all the issues she wishes this court to review. Fed. R. App. P. 28. The failure to raise an issue results in its abandonment on appeal. See Hensley on behalf of N. Carolina v. Price, 876 F.3d 573, 580 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, we will review only the issues that Scott has identified in her brief.

On appeal, Scott asks us to review the district court's holding that her complaint failed to demonstrate that Defendants Moon and Zaiger were information content providers, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 230, or that these Defendants encouraged illegal content about her to be posted on their websites. We agree with the district court that Scott's complaint contained insufficient allegations that the Defendants provided illegal content about her or encouraged such content to be posted online.

For the reasons explained by the district court, we affirm. 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.