Roger Coley v. Annie Cooper, No. 18-7012 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-7012 ROGER EARL COLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANNIE COOPER; FROIST KNIGHT; BRIAN PATRICK LIVECCHI; THOMAS SEIGHMAN; JUDGE W. RUSSELL DUKE, JR.; JUDGE FRANK R. BROWN; JAMES K. ANTINORE; STEVEN A. GRAHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-ct-03047-BO) Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 26, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger Earl Coley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roger Earl Coley appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. * On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because his informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Coley 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 deny Coley’s motion objecting to the terms of the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. 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 * Although the district court dismissed Coley’s action without prejudice, we have jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court’s order makes clear that Coley could not “save his action by merely amending his complaint.” Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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.