Court Opinion

ID: 9778345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:00:57.542819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:07.713728
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1188      Doc: 11         Filed: 08/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1188

        JIBRIL L. IBRAHIM,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        VIZIO, INC.; SELF STORAGE PLUS; HOMELAND SECURITY; MARK DOE,
        DC Police Officer; PAUL DOE, Police Officer; NATE DOE, DC Police Officer;
        KAREN DOE, DC Police Officer; CHIEF ROBERT CONTEE, D.C. Chief of
        Police; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT OFFICE OF THE MAYOR;
        OFFICE OF POLICE COMPLAINTS,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:22-cv-00462-GJH)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 28, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jibril Luqman Ibrahim, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Alan Sampson, SAUL EWING LLP,
        Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Vizio, Inc.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1188         Doc: 11      Filed: 08/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jibril Luqman Ibrahim appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant Vizio,

        Inc.’s motion to dismiss and dismissing as frivolous Ibrahim’s complaint as to all

        defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On appeal, we confine our review to the

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