Court Opinion

ID: 9389412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:18.476456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.547891
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1897      Doc: 13         Filed: 04/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1897

        MAJOR FLEMING,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        SHAWN T. RIVARD, Virginia State Police; VINCE J. MACANO, Virginia State
        Police; VIRGINIA STATE POLICE AVIATION UNITS,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00210-JAG)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 24, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Major Fleming, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Hensley, OFFICE OF THE
        ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1897         Doc: 13      Filed: 04/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Major Fleming appeals the district court’s order dismissing Fleming’s 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal

        brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Fleming’s informal brief 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. We deny Fleming’s

        motion to seal. 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