Court Opinion

ID: 9947021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:01:22.283205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:46.002452
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1981      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/29/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1981

        IYANNA ANDERSON,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        SEAT PLEASANT POLICE DEPARTMENT; STATE OF MARYLAND, Attorney
        General; LIEUTENANT HEYWARD (0159); CORPORAL STEVENS (0112);
        OFFICER HARMON (0156); OFFICER BLAKE (0169); MCDONALD AUTO
        BODY WORKS, INC., d/b/a McDonald Towing,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:22-cv-01542-DLB)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                 Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Iyanna Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. James Nelson Lewis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
        GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1981      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Iyanna Anderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing in part, and granting

        summary judgment in part, in Anderson’s civil rights action. On appeal, we confine our

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

        informal brief does not challenge any aspect of the district court’s thorough and well-

        reasoned opinion disposing of Anderson’s claims, she has forfeited appellate review of the

        appealed-from 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 order. 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