NORTH CAROLINA v. LAKSHMINARASIMHA (2019)

Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha appeals the district court's order dismissing his civil action for lack of jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lakshminarasimha's informal briefs do not challenge the bases for the district court's disposition, Lakshminarasimha 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 and affirm the district court's judgment. North Carolina v. Lakshminarasimha, No. 5:18-mj-01029-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2018). We deny Lakshminarasimha's motion to expedite decision and self-styled “Emergency Rule 27 motion” 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.