Court Opinion

ID: 9397292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:01:25.894154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.183772
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7464      Doc: 12         Filed: 05/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7464

        ELWOOD GREGORY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BLAKENSHIP, Nurse S-3 Medical,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:22-cv-00420-MSD-RJK)

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

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Elwood Gregory, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7464      Doc: 12          Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Elwood Gregory appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his

        civil rights action for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). * On appeal,

        we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

        Because Gregory’s 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

               *
                 Although the dismissal was without prejudice, we conclude that the district court’s
        order is final and appealable because the court dismissed the complaint “for procedural
        reasons unrelated to the contents of the pleadings.” Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y,
        Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015), abrogated in part on other grounds by Bing v.
        Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 611-12 (4th Cir. 2020).

                                                      2