Reniece Kabando v. Dana Boente, No. 17-1773 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1773 RENIECE L.W. KABANDO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DANA J. BOENTE, United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; DENNIS C. BARGHAAN, JR., Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia; STEVEN E. GORDON, Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of Virginia, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-00076-TSE-TCB) Submitted: August 17, 2017 Decided: August 21, 2017 Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reniece L.W. Kabando, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Sara Levenson, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reniece L.W. Kabando appeals from the district court’s January 24, 2017, order denying her motion for an expedited hearing and self-styled “Motion for Exparte” and May 31, 2017, order dismissing her amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2012) and denying leave to amend that complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Kabando’s informal brief * does not present specific arguments challenging the bases for the district court’s dispositions, Kabando has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. 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 * Kabando states in her informal brief that she needs assigned counsel. To the extent that Kabando is requesting the appointment or assignment of counsel on appeal, that request is denied. 2

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.