USCA4 Appeal: 24-6514 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6514

WALKER WASHINGTON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN KELLY, Individual Capacity; CAPTAIN CHASE, Individual Capacity; LIEUTENANT ALLEN, (S.E.S.) (S.I.S.), Individual Capacity; LIEUTENANT REYNOLDS; UNIT MANAGER WARE, Individual Capacity; MS. BYRD; LIEUTENANT DARNELL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:23-ct-03331-BO)

Submitted: October 10, 2024 Decided: October 16, 2024

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walker Washington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6514 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Walker Washington, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing under

(e)(2)(B) his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

(1971). On appeal, we confine our

review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Washington’s

informal brief does not address or challenge the district court’s dispositive determination

that Washington’s claims present a new Bivens context or that certain factors counsel

against expanding this remedy to his claims. Because Washington’s informal brief does

not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review

of the court’s order. 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 order.

Washington v. Kelly, No. 5:23-ct-03331-BO (E.D.N.C. May 7, 2024). 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

2