USCA4 Appeal: 24-6141 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6141

CHRISTOPHER LUMPKIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, and MICHAEL TAYLOR; GEORGE H. SPIKER, JR.; CLAYTON FELTON, Plaintiffs, v. SUSSEX I STATE PRISON; RINER, Nurse Practitioner; KING, Doctor; A.

WETHINGTON, Unit Manager; KEVIN MCCOY, Warden; T. GREEN, Assistant Warden; TURNER, Captain, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 24-6142

CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE LUMPKIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHADWICK DOTSON, Dir., Virginia Department of Corrections; VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL; KEN BALDASSARI, Assistant Attorney General; PETRA B. HASKINS, Commonwealth Attorney; MIKE NEWMAN, Commonwealth Attorney; JAMES C. MARTIN, Attorney, VSB 27968, Martin & Martin Law Firm, USCA4 Appeal: 24-6141 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:23-cv-00668-JAG-MRC; 3:23- cv-00669-JAG-MRC)

Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 30, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Dewayne Lumpkin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6141 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/30/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Christopher Dewayne Lumpkin appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints for failure to comply with the court’s orders to either pay the initial partial filing fee or demonstrate that he could not. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lumpkin’s informal briefs do not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. 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.”). We therefore affirm the district court’s orders. We also deny Lumpkin’s motion, filed in No. 24-6142, to consolidate the appeal with Lumpkin’s appeal in No. 24-6143, as the latter appeal is no longer pending with this court. 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