Opinion
24-6283
07-30-2024
JOHN RICHARD NEWSOME, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. REGINALD FLOYD; K. JEFFORDS; C. SPAZIANI, Defendants - Appellees.
John Richard Newsome, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 25, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, Senior District Judge. (4:23-cv-03968-RBH)
John Richard Newsome, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
John Richard Newsome appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Newsome's amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b). Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Newsome's informal briefs, we find no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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 judgment. Newsome v. Floyd, No. 4:23-cv-03968-RBH (D.S.C. Mar. 18, 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.