USCA4 Appeal: 23-7135 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7135

KATHY REAVES, a/k/a Kathy Juanita Reaves, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CORPORAL CHARLES M. DICKENS, Individually; SOUTH CAROLINA HIGHWAY PATROL; SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION; SOUTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; COUNTY OF MARLBORO, Defendants - Appellees, and MARLBORO COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (4:22-cv-00639-TLW)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7135 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Kathy Reaves, Appellant Pro Se. Jerome Scott Kozacki, WILLCOX BUYCK & WILLIAMS, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7135 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Kathy Reaves appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for contempt and an order to show cause. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Reaves’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition of the motion—namely, that it lacked jurisdiction over the motion due to Reaves’ then-pending appeal of the district court’s prior orders—she 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 order. Reaves v. Dickens, No. 4:22-cv-00639-TLW (D.S.C. Oct. 31, 2023). 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