Court Opinion

ID: 9405655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 21:01:00.977205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:24.112420
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6242      Doc: 13         Filed: 06/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6242

        FRANKLIN W. DAVIS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ROANOKE PUBLIC DEFENDERS;                    JUDGE     CARSON;       CRYSTAL    SMITH,
        Commonwealth’s Attorney,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:22-cv-00678-JPJ-PMS)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: June 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Franklin W. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6242      Doc: 13          Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Franklin W. Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues

        raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Davis’ 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 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