Kevin Sleem v. U. S. Federal Government, No. 23-1565 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1565 KEVIN SLEEM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; UNC CHAPEL HILL, Dorms, Student Housing; FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY, College of Business; DURHAM TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Engineering Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00355-FL) Submitted: October 19, 2023 Decided: October 23, 2023 Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin Sleem, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Sleem appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss, after a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Sleem’s civil complaint against Defendants. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sleem’s informal and supplemental informal briefs fail to meaningfully challenge the district court’s rationale for dismissing his claims, Sleem 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.”). To the extent Sleem seeks to raise new claims or to introduce evidence for the first time on appeal, he may not do so. See Holly Hill Farm Corp. v. United States, 447 F.3d 258, 267 (4th Cir. 2006). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. Sleem v. U.S. Fed. Gov’t, No. 5:22cv-00355-FL (E.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2023). 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.