Filed: Feb. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7138 ELVIS WAYNE JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00365-RAJ-DEM) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elvis Wayne Jones
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7138 ELVIS WAYNE JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00365-RAJ-DEM) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elvis Wayne Jones,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7138
ELVIS WAYNE JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:17-cv-00365-RAJ-DEM)
Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elvis Wayne Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elvis Wayne Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint
without prejudice for improper venue. * On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Jones’ informal brief does
not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Jones has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,
370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th
Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny Jones’ “motion for justices to emergency” and 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
*
Because Jones cannot cure the defect identified by the district court by simply
amending his complaint, the district court’s order is final and appealable. Goode v. Cent.
Va. Legal Aid Soc’y,
807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015).
2