Court Opinion

ID: 9961897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:42.392823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:14.964232
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2279      Doc: 6        Filed: 04/19/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-2279

        In re: STARSHA M. SEWELL,

                            Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:18-mc-00114)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                           Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2279         Doc: 6      Filed: 04/19/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s order returning certain pleadings to

        her pursuant to a previously imposed prefiling injunction. ∗ On appeal, we confine our

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

        informal brief does not challenge the district court’s rationale, she 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

        order. 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

               ∗
                To the extent that Sewell contests the prefiling injunction, we note that this court
        previously affirmed that order. See In re Sewell, 732 F. App’x 221 (4th Cir. 2018) (No. 18-
        1298).

                                                     2