Kimberly Elliott v. Judge Brown, No. 21-2253 (4th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-2253 KIMBERLY ELLIOTT; ANTHONY W. ELLIOTT, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JUDGE BROWN; CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT CLERK’S OFFICE; CHESAPEAKE CORRECTIONAL CENTER/MENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT; CHESAPEAKE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE; ATTORNEY JOHN W. JELICH; ATTORNEY MATTHEW WOOLEN; CHESAPEAKE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CHESAPEAKE SHERIFF’S OFFICE; PORTSMOUTH PROBATION & PAROLE; SHONDA GRAZIER, Probation Officer; RACHEL G. HOLSTON, Probation Officer; CHESAPEAKE DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT; CHESAPEAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT; VIRGINIA STATE POLICE; CHESAPEAKE GENERAL DISTRICT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:20-cv-00214-AWA-RJK) Submitted: April 26, 2022 Decided: April 28, 2022 Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kimberly C. Elliott and Anthony W. Elliott, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Kimberly C. Elliott and Anthony W. Elliott (“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice their civil rights action for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). * On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Appellants’ 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 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 dismissal was without prejudice, we conclude that the district court’s order is final and appealable because the court dismissed the complaint “for procedural reasons unrelated to the contents of the pleadings.” Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015), abrogated in part on other grounds by Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 611-12 (4th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1376 (2021). * 3

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.