USCA4 Appeal: 24-1497 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1497 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/23/2024 Pg: 2 of 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,

(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,

(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.,

(1923); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman,

(1983).

2