Court Opinion

ID: 9404386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:26.410275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.526453
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1172      Doc: 5        Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1172

        RONALD SATISH EMRIT,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BRITISH SECRET SERVICE; CENTRAL AUTHORITY OF ENGLAND;
        HAGUE CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE LITIGATION; OFFICE OF
        INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE; HOUSE OF LORDS
        (ENGLAND); HOUSE OF COMMONS (ENGLAND); PRIME MINISTER
        RISHI; THE WINDSORS; BUCKINGHAM PALACE; ARCHBISHOP OF
        CANTERBURY; BLETCHLEY PARK,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00180-JRR)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                            Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1172         Doc: 5      Filed: 06/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action as

        frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). On appeal, we confine our review to the

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