Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06820/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06820-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6820

EDWARD MARKFABIAN HANNAH,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT; NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT SOLICITOR’S OFFICE; 

BERKELEY COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE; FARLEY LAW, 

Mitchell E. Farley,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:23-cv-01487-DCN)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Markfabian Hannah, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6820 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Markfabian Hannah appeals the district court’s order adopting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Hannah’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 

34(b). Because Hannah’s informal brief does not challenge the dispositive procedural basis 

for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. 

See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an 

important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved 

in that brief.”). 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6820 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2