SMITH v. CLARKE (2020)

Tony Bryan Smith, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's order denying his Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) motion to reopen the expired appeal period for appealing the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the court's judgment.^* On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Smith's informal brief does not challenge the district court's denial of his Rule 4(a)(6) motion, he 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 order denying Smith's Rule 4(a)(6) motion. 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.   To the extent Smith seeks to appeal the district court's order denying the underlying Rule 59(e) motion—entered on the docket on October 18, 2019—we lack jurisdiction to consider that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (setting 30-day appeal period for civil actions in which the United States is not a party); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.