Court Opinion

ID: 9961905
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:50.216644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:16.326383
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6541      Doc: 20         Filed: 04/19/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6541

        CHARLES ALGERNON BOOMER, III,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        KENNETH R. MELVIN, Judge; BRANDON T. WROLDESKI, Deputy
        Commonwealth’s Attorney; SARAH M. CROWE, Law Clerk; CIRCUIT COURT
        OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA; INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF PORTSMOUTH,
        VIRGINIA; PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA INTERNAL AFFAIRS (STAFF),

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00700-RCY-MRC)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                         Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Charles Algernon Boomer, III, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6541       Doc: 20          Filed: 04/19/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Charles A. Boomer, III, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s order to pay an

        initial partial filing fee or state under penalty of perjury his inability to do so. * On appeal,

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

        Because Boomer’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

               *
                 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