James Nanney v. David Boyle, No. 23-6852 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6852 JAMES DAVID NANNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID BOYLE, Counsel of Record, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cv-00171-MR-WCM) Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023 Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James David Nanney, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James David Nanney appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Nanney’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Nanney v. Boyle, No. 1:23-cv-00171-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 2023). 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 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.