Starsha Sewell appeals the district courts order returning certain pleadings to her pursuant to a previously imposed prefiling injunction.
*
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sewells informal brief and various supplements do not challenge the district courts rationale, she 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 order. We deny Sewells motion for enforcement. 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 that Sewell contests the prefiling injunction, we note that this court previously affirmed that order. See In re Sewell, 732 F. Appx 221 (4th Cir. 2018).
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.