USCA4 Appeal: 24-1805 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1805

TYREEK DAVIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

JANE DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ABNER ALVA CANO RODENIXTO, in his official and individual capacity; MARK SAWYER, Badge #1693; in his official and individual capacity; C. RIVAS, in his official and individual capacity; BRIAN TRACEY, in his official and individual capacity; ALISA A. GREGORY, in her official and individual capacity; EMS WORKER JOHN DOE, in his official and individual capacity; STANLEY M. MEADOR, in his official and individual capacity; COLLETTE WALLACE MCEACHIN, in her official and individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00079-MHL)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 27, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1805 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyreek Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1805 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Tyreek Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his

complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

(1971), for failure to prosecute or comply with a

court order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to

(e)(2)(B). * On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the

informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). In his original and amended informal briefs, Davis

reiterates the claims appearing in his complaint, but he does not challenge the district

court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to prosecute. Because Davis’s informal briefs

do not challenge this independent basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited

appellate review of this portion 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.”). Moreover, even had Davis

challenged this issue on appeal, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s

dismissal of his complaint for failure to comply with the court’s order that he file an

amended complaint. 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

* The district court’s order of dismissal without prejudice is a final, appealable order because the court did not grant Davis further leave to amend. See Britt v. DeJoy,

(4th Cir. 2022) (en banc).

3