Redmond Howard v. Daryl McCready, No. 18-1016 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1016 REDMOND HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DARYL MCCREADY, Senior Pastor at Sonrise Church (Berlin); BRYAN MATTHEW LLOYD, Pastor at Salisbury, MD Sonrise Church; MARK AARON THOMAS, Pastor at Princess Anne, MD Sonrise Church; MICHAEL DUANE RITTENHOUSE; JARED MYLON RITTENHOUSE, Defendants - Appellees. No. 18-1092 REDMOND HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DARYL MCCREADY, Senior Pastor at Sonrise Church (Berlin); BRYAN MATTHEW LLOYD, Pastor at Salisbury, MD Sonrise Church; MARK AARON THOMAS, Pastor at Princess Anne, MD Sonrise Church; MICHAEL DUANE RITTENHOUSE; JARED MYLON RITTENHOUSE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00385-GLR) Submitted: May 24, 2018 Decided: May 29, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Redmond Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Ringgold Cockey, COCKEY, BRENNAN & MALONEY, PC, Salisbury, Maryland; Erin Hebert Cancienne, DECARO, DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS, LLP, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Redmond Howard appeals the district court’s order dismissing his second amended civil complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Howard’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Howard 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, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny as unnecessary both Howard’s motion to file supplemental materials and Appellees’ motion to strike the proposed supplemental materials. 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 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.