Summary
declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after court dismissed all federal claims on a motion to dismiss
Summary of this case from Baldwin v. Am. Van Lines, Inc.Opinion
No. 15-2070
12-17-2015
HIEDA KEELER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DR. LAWRENCE CHANG; PARISER DERMATOLOGY; DR. DENNIS CRUFF; HAMPTON SENTARA SURGERY SPECIALISTS; HAMPTON SENTARA CAREPLEX; DR. BERNIE SKINNER; TIDEWATER DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, Defendants - Appellees.
Hieda A. Keeler, Appellant Pro Se. Rodney Seth Dillman, HANCOCK, DANIEL, JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Dorinda Parkola Burton, Michael Todd Gerber, POOLE MAHONEY, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Isaac Abraham McBeth, RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Joseph Tedford McFadden, Jr., RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:15-cv-00019-AWA-TEM) Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hieda A. Keeler, Appellant Pro Se. Rodney Seth Dillman, HANCOCK, DANIEL, JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Dorinda Parkola Burton, Michael Todd Gerber, POOLE MAHONEY, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Isaac Abraham McBeth, RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Joseph Tedford McFadden, Jr., RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Hieda A. Keeler appeals the district court's order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Keeler's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Keeler has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. 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