Frankie Cain v. Marcelia Banks Little

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 8, 2024
• Docket: 23-1593
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1593 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/08/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1593

FRANKIE JOHN CAIN; VELICITY PITTS,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

MARCELIA YVONNE BANKS LITTLE, Sheriff Corporal, in Individual Capacity; LIEUTENANT JUSTIN JARRATT, Lieutenant, in Official Capacity; SERGEANT TROY HAWKINS, Sergeant, in Official Capacity; LINDA BANKS EDWARDS, Court Clerk, in Official Capacity; TIM JARRATT, Head Sheriff, in Official Capacity; WILLIAM T. JARRATT, Sheriff; CITY OF EMPORIA POLICE DEPARTMENT; DAMIN WHITE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00255-MHL)

Submitted: September 30, 2024 Decided: October 8, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frankie John Cain; Velicity Pitts, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1593 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/08/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Frankie John Cain and Velicity Pitts (Plaintiffs) appeal the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice and without leave to amend their pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th

Cir. R. 34(b). When their informal brief is liberally construed, Plaintiffs argue that the

district court erred in concluding that they failed to state a claim for relief. However, the

court also found that Plaintiffs failed to comply with a court order and, thus, that dismissal

was warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). And even when liberally construed, Plaintiffs’s

informal brief does not challenge this independent, alternate ground for the dismissal of

their action. Therefore, Plaintiffs have forfeited appellate review of the district 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.”); Brown v. Nucor Corp., 785 F.3d 895, 918 (4th Cir. 2015)

(“Failure of a party in its opening brief to challenge an alternate ground for a district court’s

ruling waives that challenge.” (cleaned up)). 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