MATOUSEK v. TOWNE BANK NC VA (2019)

Susan Neal Matousek appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim.^* On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's briefs. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Matousek's informal briefs do not challenge the bases for the district court's disposition, Matousek 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 deny the request for appointment of counsel presented in Matousek's second supplemental informal brief, deny her petition for initial hearing en banc, and 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.   We have jurisdiction over the appeal because Matousek cannot cure by mere amendment all of the defects identified by the district court. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.