DocketNumber: 21-6446
Filed Date: 10/14/2022
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/17/2022
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6446 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6446 LORENZA GERALD FEREBEE, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. C. MANIS, Wallens Ridge State Prison “Warden,” Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (7:19-cv-00680-PMS) Submitted: October 13, 2021 Decided: October 14, 2022 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenza Gerald Ferebee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6446 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/14/2022 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Lorenza Gerald Ferebee, Jr., appeals the magistrate judge’s orders denying relief on his42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. * On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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.”). In his informal brief, Ferebee alleges that we lack jurisdiction over appeals from a single district court judge or a magistrate judge and asks to appeal directly to the United States Supreme Court. A litigant may appeal directly to the Supreme Court only from the grant or denial of an interlocutory or permanent injunction by order of “a district court of three judges.”28 U.S.C. § 1253
. In all other cases, “[c]ases in the court of appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court” via certiorari review or certification of a question of law by a court of appeals.28 U.S.C. § 1254
. Because Ferebee’s judgment was not issued by a district court of three judges, he may not bypass our court. 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. DISMISSED * The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.28 U.S.C. § 636
(c). 2