Court Opinion

ID: 9390165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 21:01:33.775241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:32.141243
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7396      Doc: 7         Filed: 04/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7396

        BARNEY ADRIAN DUNLAP,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Lanesboro Correctional Institution,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00139-MR)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                           Decided: April 25, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Barney Adrian Dunlap, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7396       Doc: 7         Filed: 04/25/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Barney Adrian Dunlap appeals the district court’s August 23, 2022, order denying

        his motion to reopen the time to appeal. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues

        raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Dunlap’s 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 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

                                                      2