USCA4 Appeal: 24-2206 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2206

BRADLEY TALMADGE LIVINGSTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARSHA L. RUSSELL, Judge; MAGALI FRANCOIS, Judge; MARYLAND STATE TREASURER, Goldstein Treasury Building; NJ TREASURY, Department of the Treasury; MARK T. JANECZKO, J.S.C. Judge, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:24-cv-02561-SAG)

Submitted: May 22, 2025 Decided: May 27, 2025

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bradley Talmadge Livingston, Appellant Pro Se. Kirstin Michele Lustila, Assistant Attorney General, Kevin Michael Cox, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2206 Doc: 18 Filed: 05/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Bradley Talmadge Livingston appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil rights action in which he raised claims related to closed Maryland and New Jersey state court proceedings. ∗ On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Although Livingston contends on appeal that he did not receive notice of the motion to dismiss filed by two defendants, the record belies his claim. Finally, because Livingston’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 judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and the legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

∗ The district court’s order is final and appealable because the court did not grant leave to amend. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order).