YANKAH v. RIVERSIDE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Lois YANKAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RIVERSIDE REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY; Corizon; Richmond City Justice Center; Officer Seward, Booking Officer; Sgt. Thomas, Sergeant Booking; Sgt. Loving, Sergeant Disciplinary Committee; Sgt. King, Sergeant Disciplinary Committee; Assistant Superintendent Minton, Asst Superintendent Disciplinary Committee; Officer Beach, Pod Officer; Officer Barbour, Pod Officer; Officer Copeland, Pod Officer; Lt. Wyche, Lieutenant; Cpt. Mack, Captain; Major Flippin; Sgt. Spratley, Sergeant; Unknown Riverside Regional Jail Officials, Jail Officials; Corizon Health, Inc., Medical Provider; Unknown Corizon Medical Staff, Jail Medical Staff; Unknown Chesterfield County Sheriff's and Deputies, Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs; Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, County Leadership; Chesterfield County, County; Chesterfield County Jail, County Leadership; Prince George County Administration, County Leadership; Prince George County, County; Deputy Carver, Deputy Sheriff Booking; Sergeant Smith, Deputy Sheriff Classification; Commonwealth of Virginia, Commonwealth; Kelly Thomasson, Secretary of the Commonwealth; Christopher Frink, Director of Extradition; Governor Terence R. McAuliffe, Governor; City of Richmond, City; Richmond City Council, County Leadership; Lieutenant Decca, Booking Supervisor; Chesterfield County Administration, County Leadership; Unknown Richmond City Sheriff's Deputies and Staff, Sheriff and Deputy Sheriffs; Richmond City Sheriff's Office; Prince George County Board of Supervisors, County Leadership, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-6613

Decided: December 29, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Lois A. Yankah, Appellant Pro Se.

Lois A. Yankah appeals the district court's orders dismissing her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim and denying her motion for reconsideration. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Yankah's informal brief does not challenge the dispositive basis for the district court's denial, she 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. 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.

Was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law