Ta'Kuan Bingham v. Jefferey Shaw, No. 24-7114 (4th Cir. 2025)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7114 TA’KUAN BINGHAM, a/k/a Ta’Kaun Keontay Bingham, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JEFFEREY WILLIAM SHAW, Judge; MONIQUE W. DONNER, Prosecutor; DANA ANNE FANTOZZI; RENEE ANNE MCGLAUCLIN; PATRICK GRAHAM, Detective, Badge #0321; JULIE CHURCHILL; KATHRYN ELENEOR LAVELLE, Second Appointed Public-Defender; MATTHEW BEYRA, Assistant Attorney; GLOUCESTER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:24-cv-01034-RDA-LRV) Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 29, 2025 Before WILKINSON, WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ta’Kuan Bingham, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ta’Kuan Bingham appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bingham’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.”). Specifically, Bingham has not challenged on appeal the district court’s conclusions that his claims are barred by the statute of limitations, by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and by prosecutorial immunity. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Bingham v. Shaw, No. 1:24-cv-01034-RDA-LRV (E.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2024). 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.