GRYDER v. VIRGINIA DMV DMV (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-08-26No. No. 21-1357

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal order because Gryder failed to preserve his arguments for appellate review by challenging the dismissal's basis in his informal brief.

Ken Gryder appealed a district court order that dismissed his complaint against the Virginia DMV following a review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Fourth Circuit limited its review to the issues Gryder raised in his informal brief, as required by circuit rules. Because Gryder's informal brief failed to challenge the reasoning behind the district court's dismissal, he forfeited his right to appellate review of that order. The appellate court therefore upheld the district court's judgment without oral argument, finding the written materials sufficient to decide the case.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Forfeiture of appellate review due to failure to challenge district court's reasoning in informal brief
Scope of Fourth Circuit review limited to issues raised in informal brief

Procedural posture

Gryder appealed the district court's order dismissing his complaint to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Ken Gryder appeals the district courts order dismissing, after a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Gryders complaint purporting to raise several claims against Defendants. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gryders informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district courts disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the courts 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 courts 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.