USCA4 Appeal: 23-6188 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6188

ROY MANDELL SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U. S. MARSHAL FUGITIVE UNIT; CHESTERFIELD, VIRGINIA SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01306-MSN-WEF)

Submitted: June 15, 2023 Decided: June 21, 2023

Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Mandell Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6188 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Roy Mandell Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The court determined that Smith failed to state a claim because he could not seek release from custody through a § 1983 action and his other claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Smith’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s determination that Smith’s request for release under § 1983 was improper and his claims were otherwise Heck-barred, he has forfeited appellate review of those portions 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.”). And our review shows that the court did not err by dismissing Smith’s complaint before ordering service on Defendants, denying Smith’s motion for a transfer, and declining to provide Smith with a standard § 1983 form.

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