Jibril Ibrahim v. Vizio, Inc., No. 23-1188 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1188 JIBRIL L. IBRAHIM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VIZIO, INC.; SELF STORAGE PLUS; HOMELAND SECURITY; MARK DOE, DC Police Officer; PAUL DOE, Police Officer; NATE DOE, DC Police Officer; KAREN DOE, DC Police Officer; CHIEF ROBERT CONTEE, D.C. Chief of Police; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT OFFICE OF THE MAYOR; OFFICE OF POLICE COMPLAINTS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:22-cv-00462-GJH) Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 28, 2023 Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jibril Luqman Ibrahim, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Alan Sampson, SAUL EWING LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Vizio, Inc. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jibril Luqman Ibrahim appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant Vizio, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and dismissing as frivolous Ibrahim’s complaint as to all defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ibrahim’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.