Court Opinion

ID: 9962855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 21:01:00.68605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:25.762613
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1140      Doc: 7        Filed: 04/22/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 24-1140

        MATTHEW JONES,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        VIRGINIA STATE POLICE; NEWPORT NEWS POLICE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:23-cv-01652-PTG-WEF)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                           Decided: April 22, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Matthew Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1140       Doc: 7          Filed: 04/22/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Matthew Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for lack

        of subject matter jurisdiction and denying as moot his motion for leave to proceed in forma

        pauperis. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See

        4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Jones’ informal brief does not challenge the subject matter

        jurisdiction 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