Opinion
No. 19-6901
11-06-2019
RONALD MCCLARY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOSEPH LIGHTSEY; PAMELA HENDERSON; MITCHELL LAWSON; HERIBERTO SIERRA, Defendants - Appellees.
Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, Madeleine Michelle Pfefferle, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Charles Houston Foppiano, Gary Adam Moyers, BATTEN LEE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:16-ct-03052-BO) Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, Madeleine Michelle Pfefferle, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina; Charles Houston Foppiano, Gary Adam Moyers, BATTEN LEE, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Ronald McClary appeals the district court's orders and judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
The district court dismissed McClary's claims against Dr. Lightsey based on res judicata and McClary's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. On appeal, McClary does not challenge those findings in his informal brief. Accordingly, because our review is limited to issues raised in the informal brief, we will dismiss the appeal in part. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating that "our review is limited to issues preserved in [the informal] brief.").
We have reviewed the district court's order granting summary judgment to the remaining defendants and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district court. McClary v. Lightsey, No. 5:16-ct-03052-BO (E.D.N.C. June 20, 2018; June 18, 2019). 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.
DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART