Court Opinion

ID: 9375104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:12.132282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.240797
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6265      Doc: 8         Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6265

        JOHNATHAN A. FULLER,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        DENISE JACKSON; STEPHEN WADDELL; TODD E. ISHEE; ERIC HOOKS,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:21-ct-03206-FL)

        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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Johnathan A. Fuller, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6265       Doc: 8         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Johnathan A. Fuller appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Limiting our review of the record to

        the issues raised in Fuller’s informal brief, we conclude that Fuller has forfeited review of

        his excessive force and stolen property claims, and we otherwise 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 order. Fuller

        v. Jackson, No. 5:21-ct-03206-FL (E.D.N.C. Feb. 24, 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