Court Opinion

ID: 9374425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 21:00:49.338528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:47.119499
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2003      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 22-2003

        CURTISS DAVIS, III,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        PEDRO BONILLA; EL CARBONERO, LLC,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-00992-RDA-WEF)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 21, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Curtiss Davis, III, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2003      Doc: 11          Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Curtiss Davis, III, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

        of the magistrate judge, denying Davis’ motion for default judgment, and denying Davis’

        other pending motions. ∗ We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. Bonilla,

        No. 1:20-cv-00992-RDA-WEF (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2022). 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

               ∗
                 We observe that Davis’ informal brief does not address the other rulings in either
        the appealed-from dispositive order or in any of the court’s earlier orders. Because we
        limit our review to the issues raised in an appellant’s informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b),
        Davis has forfeited appellate review as to these rulings, 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.”).

                                                      2