Court Opinion

ID: 9913851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 21:00:44.715766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:09.790646
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6937      Doc: 9         Filed: 12/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6937

        RICO GREER,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00263-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Rico Greer, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6937      Doc: 9         Filed: 12/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Rico Greer appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

        petition without prejudice for failure to comply with the court’s prior order directing him

        to submit court-approved forms and denying as moot his motion to suppress statements.

        On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R.

        34(b). Because Greer’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