John Berman v. Rich Jordan

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1497

JOHN LAURENCE BERMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RICH JORDAN, in his official capacity as Senior Judge; JEANNIE CHO, in her official capacity as Judge; CYNTHIA CALLAHAN, in her official capacity as Senior Judge; BARBARA H. MEIKLEJOHN, in her official capacity, previous clerk; KAREN BUSHELL, in her official capacity, Clerk; MICHAEL MCAULIFFE, in official & personal capacities, Judge; E. GREGORY WELLS, in official capacity, Chief Judge; DOES 1 - 5,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:22-cv-02695-TDC)

Submitted: September 19, 2024 Decided: September 23, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Berman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

John Laurence Berman appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint as barred by the Rooker-Feldman * doctrine and, in the alternative, by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. He also appeals the court’s subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b). In his informal brief, Berman does not challenge the court’s determination that his complaint was barred by collateral estoppel. Consequently, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 293 (4th Cir. 2014) (“[T]o obtain reversal of a district court judgment based on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); 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

*

Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).