Court Opinion

ID: 9405267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:00:51.52587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.261313
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7450      Doc: 10         Filed: 06/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7450

        RODERICK SANFORD,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (0:21-cv-02552-RMG)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: June 26, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Roderick Lamar Sanford, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7450      Doc: 10         Filed: 06/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Roderick Sanford appeals the district court’s orders accepting the magistrate judge’s

        recommendations and dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Sanford’s civil

        action seeking relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80.

        Limiting our review to the issues raised in Sanford’s informal brief, we have reviewed the

        record and find no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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 orders. Sanford v. United States, No. 0:21-cv-02552-RMG

        (D.S.C. Apr. 25, 2022; Dec. 2, 2022). 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