Opinion
22-1590
07-25-2023
CAROL TACCINO; WILLIAM TACCINO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CUMBERLAND, MD. LOCAL GOVERNMENT; ALLEGANY COUNTY, MD. LOCAL GOV'T; JENNIFER CLEM; DAWN LINDSEY; W. TIMOTHY FINAN, Defendants-Appellees.
William A. Taccino, Carol J. Taccino, Appellants Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: June 30, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George R. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00226-GLR)
William A. Taccino, Carol J. Taccino, Appellants Pro Se.
Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Carol J. and William A. Taccino appeal the district court's order dismissing their civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because the Taccinos' informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, they have 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 judgment. We deny the Taccinos' motion to appoint counsel and 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.
[*] In their informal brief, the Taccinos claimed they never received a copy of the district court's memorandum explaining the reasons for the dismissal. However, after having been provided a copy of the memorandum and afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental informal brief addressing the issues therein, the Taccinos failed to do so.