Court Opinion

ID: 9947168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:01:08.684304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:59.533484
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6820      Doc: 9         Filed: 03/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6820

        EDWARD MARKFABIAN HANNAH,

                     Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; BERKELEY COUNTY SHERIFF’S
        DEPARTMENT; NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT SOLICITOR’S OFFICE;
        BERKELEY COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE; FARLEY LAW,
        Mitchell E. Farley,

                     Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:23-cv-01487-DCN)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                        Decided: March 1, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Edward Markfabian Hannah, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6820      Doc: 9         Filed: 03/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Edward Markfabian Hannah appeals the district court’s order adopting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Hannah’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

        On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R.

        34(b). Because Hannah’s informal brief does not challenge the dispositive procedural 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