TAYLOR v. GRUBBS (2019)

In these consolidated appeals, Therl Taylor appeals the district court's orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and dismissing Taylor's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaints for failure to state a claim and counting each case as a strike.¹ We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.² Taylor v. Grubbs, No. 2:15-cv-04958-RMG, 2017 WL 464373 (D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2017); Taylor v. Pate, No. 2:16-cv-02115-RMG, 2017 WL 476625 (D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2017); Taylor v. Worrick, No. 2:16-cv-03084-RMG, 2017 WL 464374 (D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2017). 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

1.   We previously determined that Taylor could proceed in forma pauperis in these appeals. See Taylor v. Grubbs, 930 F.3d 611, 614, 620 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding that, for purposes of three strikes rule of Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012), “a district court's dismissal of a prisoner's complaint does not, in an appeal of that dismissal, qualify as a ‘prior dismissal’ ”).

2.   In Appeal Nos. 17-6375 and 17-6376, Taylor forfeited appellate review of the district court's orders because his informal briefs in those cases did not challenge the bases for the district court's disposition. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (directing appellants to present “specific issues and supporting facts and arguments” in informal brief).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.