U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2024

Christopher Lumpkin v. Virginia Attorney General

Christopher Lumpkin v. Virginia Attorney General
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 28, 2024

Christopher Lumpkin v. Virginia Attorney General

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6258 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6258

CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE LUMPKIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL; KEN BALDASSARI, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia; JAMES C. MARTIN, Attorney; MIKE NEWMAAN, Commonwealth Attorney of Danville, Virginia; PETRA B. HASKINS, Commonwealth Attorney of Danville, Virginia; JUDGE JAMES J. REYNOLDS, Circuit Court of the City of Danville of Danville , Virginia, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:23-cv-00698-JAG-MRC)

Submitted: June 25, 2024 Decided: June 28, 2024

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Dewayne Lumpkin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6258 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/28/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Christopher Dewayne Lumpkin appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil rights action for failure to comply with the court’s prior order regarding payment of the initial filing fee. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lumpkin’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, 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.

Lumpkin v. Va. Att’y Gen., No. 3:23-cv-00698-JAG-MRC (E.D. Va. Mar. 5, 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.