Court Opinion

ID: 9896263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:00:56.054807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:44.285843
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1307      Doc: 18         Filed: 11/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1307

        RAJAN PATEL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (8:20-cv-03070-LKG)

        Submitted: October 20, 2023                                  Decided: November 8, 2023

        Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior
        Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Rajan Patel, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Ann DeRose, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
        GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1307         Doc: 18      Filed: 11/08/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Rajan Patel appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for lack of

        subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

        granted. * On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See

        4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Patel’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the

        district court’s disposition of his claim under the Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C.

        §§ 1666-1666j, he has forfeited appellate review of that claim. 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.”). Turning to

        the issue preserved for appellate review, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible

        error in the district court’s disposition of Patel’s request for declaratory relief.

        Accordingly, we affirm. Patel v. Univ. of Md., No. 8:20-cv-03070-LKG (D. Md. Feb. 15,

        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

               *
                 The University of Maryland seeks dismissal of this appeal as untimely. However,
        because the district court did not enter a separate judgment as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
        58(a), the district court’s February 15, 2023, order is considered entered, for the purposes
        of Rule 4(a)(1)(A), 150 days after its entry on the court’s docket. See Fed. R. App. P.
        4(a)(7)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2). Patel’s March 20, 2023, notice of appeal is therefore
        timely.

                                                     2