Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jerome Eugene TODD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Zachary J. SULLIVAN, Trial Attorney; Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General of the United States, individual and official capacities; James L. Robert, United States District Federal Judge, individual capacity; H. Joyner, Warden Chief Executive Officer, individual capacity; Chad A. Readler, Assistant Attorney General, individual capacity; Thomas R. Kane, Former Director of BOP, individual capacity; Jeffery C. Sullivan, United States Attorney; Anastasia Bartlett, Assistant United States Attorney, individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Jerome Eugene Todd appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his Bivens action.* On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Todd's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Todd 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 and deny Todd's motions for bail or release pending appeal. 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
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. Although the district court dismissed Todd's complaint without prejudice, we possess jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court dismissed his action for failure to comply with a court order, not on account of a flaw in the complaint. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-6317
Decided: July 24, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)