OPINION

Tyrone Andrews appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant Elkins’ motion for summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. Andrews raises only one issue in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (pro se appellants may obtain appellate review of only those issues explicitly raised in their informal briefs). Relying on the initial pretrial conference order, Andrews maintains that the district court should not have granted Elkins’ motion for summary judgment because the motion was filed out of time and the district court led him to believe that he did not need to respond to Elkins’ motion. We find this claim without merit given that an order subsequent to the initial pretrial conference extended the discovery period and Andrews was given specific notice by the district court, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), that failure to respond to Elkins’ motion for summary judgment could lead to dismissal of his case. Therefore, Andrews’ argument is simply belied by the record.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. * See Andrews v. Elkins, 227 F.Supp.2d 488 (M.D.N.C. 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con *499 tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.