Court Opinion

ID: 9962864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 21:01:09.410554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:07.553097
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7309      Doc: 13         Filed: 04/22/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7309

        ABIR ALI,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ESKER LEE TATUM, Warden; JOHN DOE; JOHN DOE,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00616-DJN-MRC)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                         Decided: April 22, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Abir Ali, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7309       Doc: 13         Filed: 04/22/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Abir Ali appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint for failing to comply with a court directive to complete a consent to

        collection of fees form. ∗ On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the

        informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ali’s informal brief does not challenge the

        procedural 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

               ∗
                 The dismissal order is final and appealable because the district court did not grant
        leave to amend. Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 791 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).

                                                      2