Court Opinion

ID: 9390144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:01:11.10191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.654898
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1030      Doc: 6        Filed: 04/25/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1030

        RONALD SATISH EMRIT,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE OF FBI FIELD OFFICE, Southern District of
        New York (SDNY),

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-03160-RDB)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                           Decided: April 25, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1030         Doc: 6       Filed: 04/25/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action and

        declining to transfer his case to another federal district court. On appeal, we confine our

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