Court Opinion

ID: 9929731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:00:46.508307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:38:09.385976
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1886      Doc: 8        Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1886

        SAAD LODHI,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        OFFICER BRADSHAW; FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA; FAIRFAX COUNTY
        POLICE DEPARTMENT,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00122-MSN-LRV)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 2, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Saad Usman Lodhi, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1886         Doc: 8       Filed: 02/02/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Saad Usman Lodhi appeals the district court’s order denying his second motion for

        leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised

        in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). In his informal brief, Lodhi asserts that another

        judge granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate case filed in the district

        court. Lodhi also complains that the court suddenly cancelled a hearing that was scheduled

        to address his second motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Lodhi does not

        challenge the court’s conclusion that, in this case, leave to proceed in forma pauperis was

        unwarranted in light of his stated annual income. Because Lodhi’s informal brief therefore

        fails to 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