Michael Johnson v. Stacey Kincaid, No. 19-7355 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 23, 2019.

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7355 MICHAEL ALLEN JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STACEY KINCAID, Sheriff; 2ND LT. WILSON, Deputy Sheriff; PFC. TARDER, Deputy Sheriff, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00964-CMH-TCB) Submitted: June 10, 2020 Decided: June 19, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Allen Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Allen Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing, without prejudice, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) action for failing to notify the district court of his change of address. * On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Johnson’s informal opening and supplemental briefs do not challenge the bases for the district court’s dispositive holding, Johnson has forfeited appellate review of the court’s disposition. 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 order. 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 * Our decision in Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015), does not preclude this appeal because the district court dismissed the action for a “procedural reason[ ] unrelated to the contents of [Johnson’s] pleading[].” Id. at 624. 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.