USCA4 Appeal: 25-6418 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6418

MARKUS KENTA SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNKNOWN, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:25-cv-00065-RCY-MRC)

Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 3, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Markus Kenta Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6418 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Markus Kenta Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 1 The district court dismissed Smith’s § 2254 petition because he failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s order to complete and submit the standardized form for a § 2254 petition. In his informal brief, Smith does not contest the district court’s basis for dismissing his § 2254 petition. He has thus forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”); 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 deny a certificate of appealability as unnecessary, see Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009), and affirm the district court’s order. 2 Smith v. Unknown, No. 3:25-cv-00065-RCY-MRC (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2025). 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

Smith’s initial filing was a letter alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in a state court proceeding. The magistrate judge construed it as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition based on its contents.

We observe that Smith has since filed a § 2254 petition using the proper form in a pending case in the Eastern District of Virginia. Smith v. Dotson, No. 3:25-cv-00064- RCY-MRC (E.D. Va., PACER No. 17).