Court Opinion

ID: 9374417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 21:00:42.819519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:47.018891
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1784      Doc: 7        Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1784

        LEE ANDREW WEBB,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00139-JAG)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 21, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Lee Andrew Webb, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1784      Doc: 7         Filed: 02/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Lee Andrew Webb appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint

        without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to timely file an amended

        complaint as directed. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal

        brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Webb’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

                                                     2