USCA4 Appeal: 24-1437 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1437

JERMAINE M. CAPEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF NORFOLK; CITY OF CHESAPEAKE; VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT; JUDGE HOGGE; JUDGE PAIGE; JUDGE SIMMONS; JUDGE JONES; HEATHER NEWTON, Clerk of Court General District Court; NORFOLK POLICE OFFICER LEPESKI/GOLDSMITH; NORFOLK POLICE OFFICER BARON; CARLETHIA DURHAM; FRANK HARRIS, III; J. CALDWELL; SHERIFF WILLOUGHBY; SHERIFF CHERRY; JUDGE MARY JANE HALL; JUDGE WILLIAMS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00486-AWA-LRL)

Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 3, 2025

Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jermaine M. Capel, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1437 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine M. Capel appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil 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 Capel’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, Capel has not

challenged on appeal the district court’s conclusion that his amended complaint fails to

state a plausible claim and that he failed to comply with the court’s show cause order.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Capel v. City of Norfolk, No. 2:22-

cv-00486-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 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