Kenneth Dunlap, Jr. v. North Carolina Industrial Commission

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: December 22, 2025
• Docket: 25-1845
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1845 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1845

KENNETH E. DUNLAP, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION; HARDISON & COCHRAN, PLLC, Personal Injury Lawyers; SENTRY INSURANCE; TEAGUE & CAMPBELL ATTORNEYS AT LAW; NOVANT HEALTH ORTHOPEDICS & SPORTS MEDICINE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:25-cv-00495-GCM)

Submitted: December 18, 2025 Decided: December 22, 2025

Before NIEMEYER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth E. Dunlap, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1845 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/22/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth E. Dunlap, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On appeal, we confine our review to

the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Dunlap’s informal

brief does not challenge the bases 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