
    Stephen INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAKE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Wake County Human Services; Jack H. Rogers, III, Wake County Human Services Division Director, in his official and individual capacity; Lillian Overton, Wake County Human Services Program Manager, in her official and individual capacity; Lewis D. Jackson, Jr., Wake County Human Services Supervisor I, in his official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-1638.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 5, 2011.
    Decided: Oct. 20, 2011.
    Stephen Ingram, Appellant pro se. Roger A. Askew, Wake County Attorney’s Office, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lees.
    Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Stephen Ingram appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ request for sanctions and enjoining him from directly contacting Defendants and their employees, granting in part and denying in part his motion for an extension of time to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants in his civil rights action.

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ingram’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s orders granting in part and denying in part his motion for an extension of time and adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendants, Ingram has waived appellate review of those orders. With respect to the district court’s order granting Defendants’ request for sanctions, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Ingram v. Wake Cnty. Gov’t, No. 5:08-cv-00078-FL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 2009; Nov. 3, 2009; Apr. 8 & 9, 2010).

We deny Ingram’s motions to mediate, to participate in oral argument, and to appoint counsel, and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  