USCA4 Appeal: 25-1319 Doc: 26 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1319

DEBORAH MORRIS; ARNELL MASON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BALTIMORE CITY, c/o Mayor and City Council; BALTIMORE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY; MEMORIAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LP; SOMERSET DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC; SOMERSET DEVELOPMENT, LLC- DOMESTIC, LLC; HABITAT AMERICA, LP, Defendants - Appellees.

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

Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:25-cv-00968-JRR)

Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: July 31, 2025

Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deborah Morris, Arnell Mason, Appellants Pro Se. Renita Lynne Collins, Chief Solicitor, BALTIMORE CITY SOLICITOR’S OFFICE, Baltimore, Maryland; Michael Patrick Redmond, Hanna Marie C. Sheehan, Office of Legal Affairs, BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland; Peter J. Basile, Robert Lawrence Ferguson, Jr., FERGUSON, SCHETELICH & BALLEW, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Dennis Chong, USCA4 Appeal: 25-1319 Doc: 26 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

CARR MALONEY, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1319 Doc: 26 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Deborah Morris and Arnell Mason (Plaintiffs) appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim after a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Plaintiffs’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, they have forfeited appellate review of the appealed- from 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.

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

* We deny as moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary affirmance.