Court Opinion

ID: 9365158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:55.025429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.481872
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7016      Doc: 32         Filed: 01/20/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7016

        CLINTON D. JOHNSON, JR., a/k/a Kayzon Ru,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        SGT. JOHNSON, City of Conway Police Department Officer; ALLAN G.
        HUGGINS, II, City of Conway Police Department Officer; LT. ANDERSON, J.
        Reuben Long Detention Employee; OFFICER COSTELLO, J. Reuben Long
        Detention Employee; OFFICER STRICKLAND; OFFICER FOUTZ,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (4:20-cv-01664-SAL)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Clinton D. Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leslie A. Cotter, Jr., Carmen Vaughn
        Ganjehsani, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina;
        J.W. Nelson Chandler, CHANDLER & DUDGEON LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for
        Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7016      Doc: 32         Filed: 01/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Clinton D. Johnson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing two defendants for failure to effect

        service upon on them, and awarding summary judgment to the remaining defendants on

        Johnson’s claims alleged in his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. On appeal, we

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

        Johnson’s informal brief and other appellate filings do not challenge the bases 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. 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