Clinton Johnson v. Sgt. Johnson

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7016 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7016
CLINTON D. JOHNSON, JR., a/k/a Kayzon Ru,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SGT. JOHNSON, City of Conway Police Department Officer; ALLAN G.
HUGGINS, II, City of Conway Police Department Officer; LT. ANDERSON, J.
Reuben Long Detention Employee; OFFICER COSTELLO, J. Reuben Long
Detention Employee; OFFICER STRICKLAND; OFFICER FOUTZ,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (4:20-cv-01664-SAL)
Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 20, 2023
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clinton D. Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Leslie A. Cotter, Jr., Carmen Vaughn
Ganjehsani, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina;
J.W. Nelson Chandler, CHANDLER & DUDGEON LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7016 Doc: 32 Filed: 01/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Clinton D. Johnson, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing two defendants for failure to effect
service upon on them, and awarding summary judgment to the remaining defendants on
Johnson’s claims alleged in his amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. On appeal, we
confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Johnson’s informal brief and other appellate filings do not challenge the bases 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. 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