Court Opinion

ID: 9411526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:01:25.167382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.467507
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1590      Doc: 12         Filed: 07/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1590

        CAROL TACCINO; WILLIAM TACCINO,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                     v.

        CITY OF CUMBERLAND, MD. LOCAL GOVERNMENT; ALLEGANY
        COUNTY, MD. LOCAL GOV’T; JENNIFER CLEM; DAWN LINDSEY; W.
        TIMOTHY FINAN,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George R. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00226-GLR)

        Submitted: June 30, 2023                                          Decided: July 25, 2023

        Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William A. Taccino, Carol J. Taccino, Appellants Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1590      Doc: 12         Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Carol J. and William A. Taccino appeal the district court’s order dismissing their

        civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On appeal, we confine our

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

        Taccinos’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition,

        they have 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 deny the Taccinos’ motion to appoint counsel and

        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

               *
                  In their informal brief, the Taccinos claimed they never received a copy of the
        district court’s memorandum explaining the reasons for the dismissal. However, after
        having been provided a copy of the memorandum and afforded the opportunity to file a
        supplemental informal brief addressing the issues therein, the Taccinos failed to do so.

                                                    2