John Arbogast v. Debra Minnix, No. 18-7375 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7375 JOHN FRANKLIN ARBOGAST, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEBRA MINNIX, ECT Warden Administrator; JEFF SANDY, Cabinet Secretary; CPT. ARNOLD; CORPORAL WIMER; BRENT WAYBRIGHT, Counselor; DAVIS HEALTH SYSTEMS; ELKINS STATE POLICE; KATHY WEEKLY; ROBERT PETRICE; BETSY C. JIVIDEN, Commissioner; JIM JUSTICE; DAVID FARMER, Defendants - Appellees, and CORPORAL WOMSLEY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:18-cv-00135-GMG-RWT) Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Franklin Arbogast, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John Franklin Arbogast appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing Arbogast’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Although we conclude that Arbogast filed sufficiently specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to preserve appellate review, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Arbogast’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, and he has therefore 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. 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.