Emmanuel McGriff El v. Centralize Infraction Bureau ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7384 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7384
EMMANUEL LEE MCGRIFF EL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CENTRALIZE INFRACTION BUREAU; NORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURT;
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; DEPUTY A. COX; SERGEANT M. BLEYER;
DEPUTY J. LEGG; DEPUTY T. SMITH; DEPUTY T. GRAY; DEPUTY P. DURHAM;
GASTON LOPEZ; OFFICER C. WIGGINS; OFFICER T. ALBAUGH; OFFICER M.
PARKS; OFFICER A. GUSTAVSON; OFFICER A. BRODEN; OFFICER A. KEEFER;
OFFICER S. BOSTIC; OFFICER JASON SASSER; OFFICER J. BATCHELOR;
OFFICER G. T. LAWS; CHIEF DEPUTY LARRY M. PIERCE; SERGEANT IRBY;
SUPERVISOR Z. KINLAW; DEPUTY B. R. CROKER; JUDGE WILLIAM BLAND;
CHIEF D.A. MATTHEW DELBRIDGE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:22-ct-03311-D-RJ)
Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 24, 2023
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7384 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
Emmanuel Lee McGriff El, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7384 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/24/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Lee McGriff El appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous
his request to remove his state criminal proceedings to federal court. On appeal, we confine
our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because McGriff
El’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, 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.”). 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
3