“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”
How later courts described this case
- “The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7438
BENJAMIN S. BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R. A. KLEINHOLZ, Police Officer; OFFICER MCWHIRTER,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Office of The Attorney General;
State/Person; RAY J. TARASOVIC, Chief Of Police,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-01064-CMH-TCB)
Submitted: March 27, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018
Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin S. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Earl Hill, Jr., CITY ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin S. Brown appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Brown’s informal brief
does not challenge the district court’s ruling that Defendants are entitled to qualified
immunity, an independent and sufficient basis for the district court’s disposition, Brown
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.”); see also Cavallo v.
Star Enter., 100 F.3d 1150, 1152 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996) (issue first raised in reply brief “is
not properly before a court of appeals”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. We deny Brown’s motions for transcript at government expense and
appointment of counsel. 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
3