Terrence Wells v. Matthew Lowery, No. 19-7509 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7509 TERRENCE WELLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MATTHEW LOWERY, Commonwealth Attorney Prosecutor Circuit Court, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00966-TSE-MSN) Submitted: March 10, 2020 Decided: March 13, 2020 Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Wells, Appellant Pro Se. John P. O’Herron, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrence Wells appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint without prejudice under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). * On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Wells’ informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, Wells 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 further deny Wells’ motion for transcript at government expense. 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 * Because the district court dismissed Wells’ action “for procedural reasons unrelated to the contents of the pleadings,” we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.