Shirley Hubbard v. Independent Container Line ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-1640
    SHIRLEY ANN HUBBARD,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    INDEPENDENT CONTAINER LINE, LTD.,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr. District Judge. (3:18-cv-00018-JAG)
    Submitted: September 13, 2018                               Decided: September 17, 2018
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Shirley Ann Hubbard, Appellant Pro Se. John M. Barr, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN M.
    BARR PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Shirley Ann Hubbard appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
    her claims against Independent Container Line, Ltd. * On appeal, we confine our review to
    the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hubbard’s
    informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Hubbard 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, although we grant
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
    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
    *
    Although the district court dismissed Hubbard’s complaint without prejudice, we
    possess jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court dismissed her action for
    failure to prosecute, not because of a flaw in the complaint. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid
    Soc’y, Inc., 
    807 F.3d 619
    , 623 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers
    Local Union 392, 
    10 F.3d 1064
    , 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1640

Filed Date: 9/17/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021