¶1 Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
¶2 Eddie Hatcher noted his appeal from the district court’s order overruling his objections to removal of this action from state court and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. In his informal brief, however, Hatcher challenges only a separate order awarding costs to Defendants. He has therefore waived our review of any issue as to the propriety of the removal and the dismissal of his action. See Local Rule 34(b).
¶3 Hatcher’s informal brief challenging the costs award was filed within thirty days of entry of the district court’s order awarding costs; it is therefore deemed a timely notice of appeal from that order. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court in awarding costs. See Oak Hall Cap & Gown Co. v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 899 F.2d 291, 296 (4th Cir.1990) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hatcher v. Harkleroad, No. CA-02-265-MU-2 (W.D.N.C. filed Feb. 13, 2003; entered Feb. 18, 2003). We 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.
¶4 AFFIRMED.