Robert Johnson v. Maria Imperial ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-1733     Doc: 6        Filed: 12/19/2022   Pg: 1 of 3
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-1733
    ROBERT W. JOHNSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    MARIA L. IMPERIAL; GEICO CORPORATION; STEVEN L. MAURER;
    MAURER CHIROPRACTIC; JACLYN DAVIS; GEICO INDEMNITY
    COMPANY; LARISSA DALLARI; WADE STROBLE; WILKES-BARRE
    IMAGING, LLC; WILKES-BARRE IMAGING; VISION IMAGING OF
    KINGSTON, LLC; FORD EXPLORER; DR. PAMELA THOMPSON;
    NORTHERN LIGHTS CHIROPRACTIC; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
    INSURANCE COMPANY; GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
    GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY; GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY; GEICO
    ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPANY; GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE
    COMPANY; GEICO SECURE INSURANCE COMPANY; CASSANDRA
    JONES; GEICO SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS; DAVIDSON AUTO GROUP;
    NEW JERSEY FAMILY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY; CREDIT
    ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION; CARFAX; FORD MOTOR COMPANY;
    EXEM UNITED, LLC,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-00078-RDA-TCB)
    Submitted: December 15, 2022                            Decided: December 19, 2022
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-1733      Doc: 6        Filed: 12/19/2022     Pg: 2 of 3
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert W. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-1733      Doc: 6         Filed: 12/19/2022      Pg: 3 of 3
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert W. Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint
    without prejudice. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal
    brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Johnson’s informal brief does not challenge the basis
    for the district court’s disposition, 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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-1733

Filed Date: 12/19/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2022