Filed: Jul. 28, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6386 FRANKLIN C. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM R. O’BRIEN, Virginia Beach Circuit Judge; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of (VDOC); SCOTT FREDERICK HALLAUER, Sentencing & Appeal Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cv-00266-MSD-RJK) Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 28, 2020 Befor
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6386 FRANKLIN C. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM R. O’BRIEN, Virginia Beach Circuit Judge; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of (VDOC); SCOTT FREDERICK HALLAUER, Sentencing & Appeal Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cv-00266-MSD-RJK) Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 28, 2020 Before..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6386
FRANKLIN C. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM R. O’BRIEN, Virginia Beach Circuit Judge; HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Director of (VDOC); SCOTT FREDERICK HALLAUER, Sentencing & Appeal
Attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cv-00266-MSD-RJK)
Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 28, 2020
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Franklin C. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Franklin C. Smith appeals the district court’s order granting Smith’s motion to
voluntarily dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) action and dismissing the action without
prejudice. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Smith’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