Carol Taccino v. City of Cumberland, No. 22-1590 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1590 CAROL TACCINO; WILLIAM TACCINO, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF CUMBERLAND, MD. LOCAL GOVERNMENT; ALLEGANY COUNTY, MD. LOCAL GOV’T; JENNIFER CLEM; DAWN LINDSEY; W. TIMOTHY FINAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George R. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00226-GLR) Submitted: June 30, 2023 Decided: July 25, 2023 Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William A. Taccino, Carol J. Taccino, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carol J. and William A. Taccino appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because the Taccinos’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, they have 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 deny the Taccinos’ motion to appoint counsel and 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 In their informal brief, the Taccinos claimed they never received a copy of the district court’s memorandum explaining the reasons for the dismissal. However, after having been provided a copy of the memorandum and afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental informal brief addressing the issues therein, the Taccinos failed to do so. * 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.