Opinion
20-6863
12-01-2022
JOSEPH JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN CASEY CAMPBELL; DPSCS HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION; WEXFORD MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants - Appellees.
Joseph Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Lucas William Baker Chrencik, GOODELL DEVRIES LEECH &DANN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Wexford Medical Services, Inc.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: October 31, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:18-cv-03131-GJH)
Joseph Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Lucas William Baker Chrencik, GOODELL DEVRIES LEECH &DANN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Wexford Medical Services, Inc.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Johnson appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Johnson's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, instead simply reasserting facts he presented to the district court, he 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.").[*] In any event, upon review of the record, we discern no reversible error in the district court's conclusion that Johnson's Eighth Amendment rights were not violated in connection with his medical care. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We further deny Johnson's motions to appoint counsel and for leave to file an amended complaint. 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.
[*] To the extent Johnson raises new claims on appeal, those claims are not properly before us. See Ballengee v. CBS Broad., Inc., 968 F.3d 344, 351 (4th Cir. 2020) (declining to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or a fundamental miscarriage of justice).