Court Opinion

ID: 9396905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:56.494743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.740571
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7113      Doc: 13         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7113

        DEVIN JERELL COAXUM,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        QUANDARA GRANT, Director; LATASHA                      ROBINSON,      Deputy   Director;
        BEAUFORT COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Orangeburg. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (5:22-cv-02164-JD)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Devin Jerell Coaxum, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7113         Doc: 13      Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Devin Jerell Coaxum appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint

        without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute or comply with

        a court order and directing that the case be closed. On appeal, we confine our review to

        the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Coaxum’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