Court Opinion

ID: 9397280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:01:05.986746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.095035
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6046      Doc: 9         Filed: 05/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6046

        ROMIE H. WILLIAMS,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        NC DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Department of Adult Correction;
        ROANOKE RIVER,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:22-ct-03085-FL)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                             Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Romie H. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6046      Doc: 9         Filed: 05/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Romie H. Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended

        complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised

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