Filed: Sep. 29, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 29, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6967 TRACY EDWARD LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ALEXANDRIA COURTHOUSE, Judges; ALEXANDRIA SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, Sheriff; ALEXANDRIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, Detective Division, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-01298-TSE-JFA) Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 29, 2020 Before HARR
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6967 TRACY EDWARD LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ALEXANDRIA COURTHOUSE, Judges; ALEXANDRIA SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, Sheriff; ALEXANDRIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, Detective Division, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-01298-TSE-JFA) Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 29, 2020 Before HARRI..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6967
TRACY EDWARD LEWIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALEXANDRIA COURTHOUSE, Judges; ALEXANDRIA SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT, Sheriff; ALEXANDRIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, Detective
Division,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-01298-TSE-JFA)
Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 29, 2020
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tracy Edward Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tracy Edward Lewis appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint against the Alexandria Sheriff’s Department, the Alexandria Police
Department, and unnamed state court judges for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we
confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Lewis’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