Charles Boomer, III v. Kenneth Melvin, No. 23-6541 (4th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6541 CHARLES ALGERNON BOOMER, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KENNETH R. MELVIN, Judge; BRANDON T. WROLDESKI, Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney; SARAH M. CROWE, Law Clerk; CIRCUIT COURT OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA; INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA; PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA INTERNAL AFFAIRS (STAFF), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00700-RCY-MRC) Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 19, 2024 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Algernon Boomer, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles A. Boomer, III, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s order to pay an initial partial filing fee or state under penalty of perjury his inability to do so. * On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Boomer’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 The dismissal order is final and appealable because the district court did not grant leave to amend. Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 791 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (order). * 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.