Filed: Aug. 17, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7757 ERIC LAMONT COLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. T. DARDEN, Assistant Warden; M. FOSTER, Unit Manager; LIEUTENANT A. BENTLEY; CAPTAIN LORD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00528-REP-RCY) Submitted: July 15, 2020 Decided: August 17, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7757 ERIC LAMONT COLES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. T. DARDEN, Assistant Warden; M. FOSTER, Unit Manager; LIEUTENANT A. BENTLEY; CAPTAIN LORD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00528-REP-RCY) Submitted: July 15, 2020 Decided: August 17, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7757
ERIC LAMONT COLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
T. DARDEN, Assistant Warden; M. FOSTER, Unit Manager; LIEUTENANT A.
BENTLEY; CAPTAIN LORD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00528-REP-RCY)
Submitted: July 15, 2020 Decided: August 17, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Lamont Coles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Lamont Coles appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2018) action without prejudice because he failed to pay the initial partial filing fee or state
that he is unable to pay. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Coles’ 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