WATKINS v. WALMART OF HOLLY SPRINGS (2021)

Russell Lee Watkins appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Watkins’ informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court's disposition, instead repeating and expanding on the claims asserted in his complaint, 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 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.