Court Opinion

ID: 9404388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:28.315777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.673788
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6137      Doc: 14        Filed: 06/21/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6137

        MICHAEL J. HOINESS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        DR. ABDUL JALALUDEEN, Physician; KATIE CARTWRIGHT, Physician's
        Assistant; J. DULEY, Registered Nurse; D. ARMOUT, Deputy; EMMA FLOYD,
        Registered Nurse,

                            Defendants - Appellees,

                     and

        NAPHCARE, INC., Health Care Provider,

                            Defendant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00358-AJT-IDD)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                       Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6137      Doc: 14         Filed: 06/21/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Michael J. Hoiness, Appellant Pro Se. Grace Morse-McNelis, SANDS ANDERSON, PC,
        Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6137      Doc: 14         Filed: 06/21/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael J. Hoiness appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under Fed.

        R. Civ. P. 60(b) to vacate the court’s prior order denying relief on Hoiness’ 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal

        brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hoiness’ 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

                                                     3