Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07509/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07509-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew Lowery
Appellee
Terrence Wells
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7509

TERRENCE WELLS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MATTHEW LOWERY, Commonwealth Attorney Prosecutor Circuit Court,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00966-TSE-MSN)

Submitted: March 10, 2020 Decided: March 13, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrence Wells, Appellant Pro Se. John P. O’Herron, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7509 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/13/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Wells appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2018) complaint without prejudice under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and Heck 

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

*

 On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised 

in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Wells’ informal brief does not 

challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, Wells 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 further deny Wells’ motion for transcript at government expense. 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

 * Because the district court dismissed Wells’ action “for procedural reasons 

unrelated to the contents of the pleadings,” we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Goode 

v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015).

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7509 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/13/2020 Pg: 2 of 2