Court Opinion

ID: 9375096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:04.818199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.671759
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1628      Doc: 19         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1628

        ROBERT W. JOHNSON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        TRUIST,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00113-FDW-DCK)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                  Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Robert W. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1628      Doc: 19          Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Robert W. Johnson appeals the district court’s orders denying his application to

        proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice under Fed.

        R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failing to comply with a court order. On appeal, we confine our review

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

        and supplemental informal briefs do not challenge the basis for the district court’s

        disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. 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