Retha Pierce v. Charles Bryant, No. 16-1413 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1413 RETHA PIERCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFF CHARLES BRYANT; JOSEPHINE ISOM, CHIEF RANDY RIZZO; CHARLENE TAYLOR; Defendants - Appellees, and DONNELL THOMPSON; EARLENE EVANS WOODS; TRACY EDGE, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:14-cv-02927-BHH) Submitted: January 13, 2017 Decided: January 30, 2017 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Retha Pierce, Appellant Pro Se. Charles J. Boykin, Kenneth A. Davis, Shawn Davis Eubanks, BOYKIN DAVIS & SMILEY, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Retha Pierce appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint with respect to Defendants Bryant, Isom, Rizzo, and Taylor. ∗ On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. Cir. R. 34(b). Because Pierce’s informal brief See 4th does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Pierce 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, although we grant Pierce’s application to proceed in judgment. legal before forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED ∗ The order Pierce appeals was not a final order when she noted her appeal because it did not dispose of all the claims against all defendants named in the complaint. See Robinson v. Parke-Davis & Co., 685 F.2d 912, 913 (4th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction over Pierce’s appeal because, subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, the district court issued a final judgment that dismissed the remaining defendants named in the complaint. In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287-89 (4th Cir. 2005). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
