Court Opinion

ID: 9381472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 21:01:21.112679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:32.785250
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6077      Doc: 9        Filed: 03/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6077

        KARL C. MITCHELL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; J. G. WRIGHT,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge; Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge.
        (3:22-cv-00783-RCY-MRC)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 21, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Karl C. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6077       Doc: 9        Filed: 03/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Karl Mitchell appeals the district court’s order denying leave to file a proposed

        amended complaint based on the court’s finding that Mitchell’s proposed complaint

        violated federal joinder rules. The court’s order explicitly permitted Mitchell to file a

        second amended complaint and notified him that failure to do so within 30 days would

        result in dismissal of his case. Rather than comply, Mitchell moved for reconsideration of

        that interlocutory order and noted the instant appeal. The district court denied the motion

        to reconsider and dismissed Mitchell’s case for failure to comply with the court’s order.

               Because Mitchell filed his informal brief within 30 days of the district court’s

        dismissal order and indicated his intent to appeal the “final judgment,” we construe his

        informal brief as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal from that order. See Smith

        v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992). However, because Mitchell otherwise fails to

        challenge the substance of the court’s dismissal order, he has forfeited review of that order.

        See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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.”). As to Mitchell’s challenge of the district court’s order denying

        leave to file the proposed amended complaint, we have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error.

               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