ESPINDOLA SOTO v. Tracy Johns, Warden, Defendant. (2019)

Huberto Espindola-Soto appeals the district court's order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice because he failed to submit a fee collection form as ordered by the court. We have jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court dismissed Espindola-Soto's complaint for procedural reasons unrelated to the contents of his pleadings, see Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d. 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015), but limit our review to the issues raised in Espindola-Soto's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because his informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's dismissal, Espindola-Soto has forfeited appellate review of the order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.