Court Opinion

ID: 9946005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:01:10.53527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:21.282867
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7075      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7075

        JAMEL TYREE LUNSFORD,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        WARDEN JACOB; WARDEN LOCKLEAR; TODD E. ISHEE, Commissioner of
        Prison/Director; KIMBERLY D. GRANDE, Executive Director; SHERRY
        SHANELL TOWNSEND, Administration/Grievance Screening; SEAN T.
        DILLARD, Administration/Grievance Screening; ANTHONY A. ADAMS, Unit
        Manager/Grievance Screening; KELLA PHILLIPS, Captain/Grievance Screening;
        NATOSHA D. LYNCH, Administration/Grievance Screening; U. S. MARSHAL,
        Federal Agents; CATHERINE C. EAGLES, Federal District Judge; MEDICAL
        STAFF; ROY COOPER,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:23-ct-03176-D-RJ)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                  Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jamel Tyree Lunsford, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7075      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/27/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jamel Tyree Lunsford appeals the district court’s order dismissing without

        prejudice * under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) his amended complaint brought pursuant to

        42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

        403 U.S. 388 (1971). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal

        brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lunsford’s informal briefs do not challenge the bases

        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

               *
                The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is a final order because the court
        dismissed the complaint “without granting leave to amend.” Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790,
        791 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).

                                                     2