Jamel Lunsford v. Warden Jacob, No. 23-7075 (4th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-7075 JAMEL TYREE LUNSFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WARDEN JACOB; WARDEN LOCKLEAR; TODD E. ISHEE, Commissioner of Prison/Director; KIMBERLY D. GRANDE, Executive Director; SHERRY SHANELL TOWNSEND, Administration/Grievance Screening; SEAN T. DILLARD, Administration/Grievance Screening; ANTHONY A. ADAMS, Unit Manager/Grievance Screening; KELLA PHILLIPS, Captain/Grievance Screening; NATOSHA D. LYNCH, Administration/Grievance Screening; U. S. MARSHAL, Federal Agents; CATHERINE C. EAGLES, Federal District Judge; MEDICAL STAFF; ROY COOPER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:23-ct-03176-D-RJ) Submitted: February 22, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2024 Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamel Tyree Lunsford, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jamel Tyree Lunsford appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice * under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) his amended complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lunsford’s informal briefs do not challenge the bases 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 district court’s dismissal without prejudice is a final order because the court dismissed the complaint “without granting 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.