Yared Tesfaye v. State of Maryland, No. 22-6066 (4th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6066 YARED TESFAYE, a/k/a Tesfaye Kassaye Abebe, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SPRINGFIELD HOSPITAL CENTER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00459-CCB) Submitted: June 28, 2022 Decided: July 1, 2022 Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yared Tesfaye, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen A. Ellis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yared Tesfaye appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his case. Appellee State of Maryland moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the notice of appeal was untimely with respect to the district court’s dismissal of Tesfaye’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. However, Tesfaye’s notice of appeal was filed within the requisite time period with respect to the district court’s December 20, 2021, order denying Tesfaye’s motion to reopen the case—the order identified in his notice of appeal. We therefore deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Tesfaye’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 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.