Robert Johnson v. Maria Imperial, No. 22-1733 (4th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-1733 ROBERT W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARIA L. IMPERIAL; GEICO CORPORATION; STEVEN L. MAURER; MAURER CHIROPRACTIC; JACLYN DAVIS; GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY; LARISSA DALLARI; WADE STROBLE; WILKES-BARRE IMAGING, LLC; WILKES-BARRE IMAGING; VISION IMAGING OF KINGSTON, LLC; FORD EXPLORER; DR. PAMELA THOMPSON; NORTHERN LIGHTS CHIROPRACTIC; GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY; GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY; GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY; GEICO ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPANY; GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY; GEICO SECURE INSURANCE COMPANY; CASSANDRA JONES; GEICO SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS; DAVIDSON AUTO GROUP; NEW JERSEY FAMILY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY; CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION; CARFAX; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; EXEM UNITED, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-00078-RDA-TCB) Submitted: December 15, 2022 Decided: December 19, 2022 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert W. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Robert W. Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Johnson’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he 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 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 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.