Nicole Abrams-Kelly v. Nissan of North America

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1592 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/23/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1592

NICOLE ABRAMS-KELLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA, Arbitration Specialist - CA; GEICO INSURANCE CLAIMS DEPT., Asst. VP Virginia Beach Regional Office; DAVID FOX, NC AGO, Consumer Protection Specialists; RANDY REID, Federal DOT, NHTSA Chief of Defects; MICHAEL FEIEREISEL, Modern Automotive General Counsel, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 25-1593

NICOLE ABRAMS-KELLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA, Arbitration Specialist - CA; GEICO INSURANCE CLAIMS DEPT., Asst. VP Virginia Beach Regional Office; DAVID FOX, NC AGO, Consumer Protection Specialists; RANDY REID, Federal DOT, NHTSA Chief of Defects; MICHAEL FEIEREISEL, General Counsel for Modern Automotive Network (NC), Defendants - Appellees.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1592 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/23/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

No. 25-1594

NICOLE ABRAMS-KELLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NISSAN OF NORTH AMERICA, Arbitration Specialist - CA; GEICO INSURANCE CLAIMS DEPT., Asst. VP Virginia Beach Regional Office; DAVID FOX, NC AGO, Consumer Protection Specialists; RANDY REID, Federal DOT, NHTSA Chief of Defects; MICHAEL FEIEREISEL, Modern Automotive Network General Counsel, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:25-cv-00090-KDB-SCR; 3:25-cv-00091- KDB-DCK; 3:25-cv-00092-KDB-SCR)

Submitted: February 19, 2026 Decided: February 23, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicole Abrams Kelly, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1592 Doc: 24 Filed: 02/23/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Nicole Abrams-Kelly appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her complaints in the underlying civil actions for failing to pay the filing fee. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Because Abrams-Kelly’s informal brief and the supplements thereto do not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, she 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 judgments. 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