SCOTT v. CARLSON (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 appellant has identified in her brief.

Scott challenges only the district court's “ruling that she has not stated a constitutional invasion of privacy claim based on the alleged violation of her Fourth Amendment rights by Defendant Carlson and Defendant Moon.” Appellant's Brief 7. As the district court noted, Scott's complaint contains no indication that either Defendant Carlson or Defendant Moon could be considered a state actor capable of violating her Fourth Amendment rights.

For the reasons explained by the district court, we affirm. We deny Scott's motion to waive PACER fees and Appellee Andrew Carlson's motion to suspend the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.