Court Opinion

ID: 9881783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:00:58.6446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:18.094560
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1555      Doc: 7        Filed: 10/02/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1555

        JEREMY W. LYLE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        AETNA BETTER HEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00064-MHL)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jeremy Lyle, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1555      Doc: 7         Filed: 10/02/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jeremy W. Lyle appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action, without

        prejudice, ∗ for failure to prosecute. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised

        in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lyle’s informal brief fails to challenge

        the district court’s rationale for dismissing his action, he has forfeited appellate review of

        the court’s disposition. 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 order. Lyle

        v. Aetna Better Health of Va., No. 3:23-cv-00064-MHL (E.D. Va. May 22, 2023). 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

               ∗
                As the district court denied Lyle leave to amend, we have jurisdiction over this
        appeal. Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 798 (4th Cir. 2022) (“[A]n order dismissing a
        complaint without prejudice and without granting leave to amend is final.”).

                                                      2