Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Bowman appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. Bowen’s claims are not cognizable under § 1983 because a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply that his subsequent criminal conviction was invalid and Bowen has not shown that his conviction has been reversed, expunged, declared invalid, or otherwise called into question. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Because Bowman may refile his claims should his conviction ever be overturned or called into question by the appropriate court, we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice and affirm as modified. 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 AS MODIFIED
In the district court, Bowman included a state constitutional claim. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this claim and dismissed it without prejudice. Bowen does not challenge this ruling in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ("The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief,”),