Robert Johnson v. Maria Imperial

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1733 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1733
ROBERT W. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARIA L. IMPERIAL; GEICO CORPORATION; STEVEN L. MAURER;
MAURER CHIROPRACTIC; JACLYN DAVIS; GEICO INDEMNITY
COMPANY; LARISSA DALLARI; WADE STROBLE; WILKES-BARRE
IMAGING, LLC; WILKES-BARRE IMAGING; VISION IMAGING OF
KINGSTON, LLC; FORD EXPLORER; DR. PAMELA THOMPSON;
NORTHERN LIGHTS CHIROPRACTIC; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY; GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY; GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY; GEICO
ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPANY; GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE
COMPANY; GEICO SECURE INSURANCE COMPANY; CASSANDRA
JONES; GEICO SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS; DAVIDSON AUTO GROUP;
NEW JERSEY FAMILY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY; CREDIT
ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION; CARFAX; FORD MOTOR COMPANY;
EXEM UNITED, LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-00078-RDA-TCB)
Submitted: December 15, 2022 Decided: December 19, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1733 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert W. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1733 Doc: 6 Filed: 12/19/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Robert W. Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint
without prejudice. 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 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