Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Moses Beaufort v. Ralph H. Johnson, 20-1028 (2020)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 20-1028 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 18, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1028 MOSES BEAUFORT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RALPH H. JOHNSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:18-cv-01569-RMG) Submitted: June 16, 2020 Decided: June 18, 2020 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moses Beaufort, Appellan
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 20-1028


MOSES BEAUFORT,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

RALPH H. JOHNSON,

                    Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:18-cv-01569-RMG)


Submitted: June 16, 2020                                          Decided: June 18, 2020


Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Moses Beaufort, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Moses Beaufort appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to

prosecute. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See

4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Beaufort’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


Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer