Keith Ashe v. Eric Hargan, No. 18-1346 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1346 KEITH ALEXANDER ASHE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERIC HARGAN, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-03522-GJH; 8:17-cv-03730-GJH) Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 20, 2018 Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Alexander Ashe, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keith Alexander Ashe appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint on the ground that Ashe’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ashe’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Ashe 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 grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) before this court * and 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 * Ashe does challenge the district court’s denial of IFP status. The district court’s ruling, based on a different application than that filed with this court, was well-within the district court’s discretion. See Dillard v. Liberty Loan Corp., 626 F.2d 363, 364 (4th Cir. 1980) (setting forth standard of review). 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.