Court Opinion

ID: 9890002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 21:00:34.06872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.225304
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2273      Doc: 22         Filed: 10/10/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2273

        KENNETH L. SANFORD,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CITY OF FRANKLIN; SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR;
        SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00046-MHL)

        Submitted: July 18, 2023                                      Decided: October 10, 2023

        Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth Sanford, Appellant Pro Se. Lloyd Lee Byrd, SANDS ANDERSON, PC,
        Richmond, Virginia; Johneal M. White, GLENN ROBINSON CATHEY MEMMER &
        SKAFF PLC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2273       Doc: 22          Filed: 10/10/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenneth Sanford appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to

        dismiss his civil complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the

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

        the bases 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 deny

        Sanford’s motions to mediate case and for this court to rule in his favor and 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