ASHE v. HARGAN (2018)

Keith Alexander Ashe appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil complaint on the ground that Ashe's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ashe's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Ashe 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 grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) before this court ^* 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Ashe does challenge the district court's denial of IFP status. The district court's ruling, based on a different application than that filed with this court, was well-within the district court's discretion. See Dillard v. Liberty Loan Corp., 626 F.2d 363, 364 (4th Cir. 1980) (setting forth standard of review).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.