USCA4 Appeal: 24-7114 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-7114

TA’KUAN BINGHAM, a/k/a Ta’Kaun Keontay Bingham,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JEFFEREY WILLIAM SHAW, Judge; MONIQUE W. DONNER, Prosecutor; DANA ANNE FANTOZZI; RENEE ANNE MCGLAUCLIN; PATRICK GRAHAM, Detective, Badge #0321; JULIE CHURCHILL; KATHRYN ELENEOR LAVELLE, Second Appointed Public-Defender; MATTHEW BEYRA, Assistant Attorney; GLOUCESTER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:24-cv-01034-RDA-LRV)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 29, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ta’Kuan Bingham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7114 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Ta’Kuan Bingham appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

action pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we

confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because

Bingham’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.”). Specifically,

Bingham has not challenged on appeal the district court’s conclusions that his claims are

barred by the statute of limitations, by Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994), and by

prosecutorial immunity. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Bingham

v. Shaw, No. 1:24-cv-01034-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va. Oct. 30, 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