From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mitchell v. Virginia

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Mar 21, 2023
No. 23-6077 (4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2023)

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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


Summaries of

Mitchell v. Virginia

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Mar 21, 2023
No. 23-6077 (4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2023)
Case details for

Mitchell v. Virginia

Case Details

Full title:KARL C. MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; J…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Mar 21, 2023

Citations

No. 23-6077 (4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2023)

Citing Cases

The Wall Guy, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.

; United States v. Coleman, 319 F. App'x 228, 229 n.1 (4th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (docketing statement);…