Court Opinion

ID: 9893128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 21:01:00.808005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:45.317708
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6611      Doc: 11         Filed: 10/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6611

        JAMEL TYREE LUNSFORD,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:22-ct-03384-D-RJ)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 24, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jamel Tyree Lunsford, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6611      Doc: 11         Filed: 10/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jamel Tyree Lunsford appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous and

        as failing to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) Lunsford’s amended 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint against the North Carolina Department of Corrections. On appeal, we

        confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because

        Lunsford’s informal brief, as supplemented, does not challenge the 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 and deny Lunsford’s motion

        requesting the appointment of counsel and various medical and disciplinary records. 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

                                                     2