Karl Mitchell v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6077 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6077
KARL C. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; J. G. WRIGHT,
Defendants - Appellees.
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)
Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 21, 2023
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karl C. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6077 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
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
2