Opinion
23-6077
03-21-2023
KARL C. MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; J. G. WRIGHT, Defendants - Appellees.
Karl C. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 16, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge; Liam O'Grady, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00783-RCY-MRC)
Karl C. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Karl Mitchell appeals the district court's order denying leave to file a proposed amended complaint based on the court's finding that Mitchell's proposed complaint violated federal joinder rules. The court's order explicitly permitted Mitchell to file a second amended complaint and notified him that failure to do so within 30 days would result in dismissal of his case. Rather than comply, Mitchell moved for reconsideration of that interlocutory order and noted the instant appeal. The district court denied the motion to reconsider and dismissed Mitchell's case for failure to comply with the court's order.
Because Mitchell filed his informal brief within 30 days of the district court's dismissal order and indicated his intent to appeal the "final judgment," we construe his informal brief as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal from that order. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49 (1992). However, because Mitchell otherwise fails to challenge the substance of the court's dismissal order, he has forfeited review of that order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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."). As to Mitchell's challenge of the district court's order denying leave to file the proposed amended complaint, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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