Filed: Sep. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1003 CLARA LEWIS BROCKINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RONALD L. HAVNER, JR., C.E.O.; PUBLIC STORAGE CORPORATE OFFICE; DANIELLE JONES, District Manager; NATHAN BATCHELOR, Senior District Manager; PUBLIC STORAGE OF FLORENCE, SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:19-cv-01752-RBH) Submitte
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1003 CLARA LEWIS BROCKINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RONALD L. HAVNER, JR., C.E.O.; PUBLIC STORAGE CORPORATE OFFICE; DANIELLE JONES, District Manager; NATHAN BATCHELOR, Senior District Manager; PUBLIC STORAGE OF FLORENCE, SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:19-cv-01752-RBH) Submitted..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1003
CLARA LEWIS BROCKINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RONALD L. HAVNER, JR., C.E.O.; PUBLIC STORAGE CORPORATE OFFICE;
DANIELLE JONES, District Manager; NATHAN BATCHELOR, Senior District
Manager; PUBLIC STORAGE OF FLORENCE, SOUTH CAROLINA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:19-cv-01752-RBH)
Submitted: August 28, 2020 Decided: September 10, 2020
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clara Lewis Brockington, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clara Lewis Brockington appeals the district court’s order adopting as modified the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing Brockington’s civil action without
prejudice. ∗ On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Brockington’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition of her claim, she 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
∗
Although the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, we have
jurisdiction over this appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC,
959 F.3d 605, 615 (4th Cir.
2020).
2