Court Opinion

ID: 9404384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:24.554599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.673038
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6188      Doc: 11         Filed: 06/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6188

        ROY MANDELL SMITH,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        U. S. MARSHAL FUGITIVE UNIT; CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA SHERIFF’S
        DEPARTMENT,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01306-MSN-WEF)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Roy Mandell Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6188      Doc: 11         Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Roy Mandell Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The court determined that Smith failed to state

        a claim because he could not seek release from custody through a § 1983 action and his

        other claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

              On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th

        Cir. R. 34(b). Because Smith’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s

        determination that Smith’s request for release under § 1983 was improper and his claims

        were otherwise Heck-barred, he has forfeited appellate review of those portions 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.”). And our review shows that the court did not err by dismissing

        Smith’s complaint before ordering service on Defendants, denying Smith’s motion for a

        transfer, and declining to provide Smith with a standard § 1983 form.

               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