Robin Y. McMillan v. Unknown Doe

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7537

ROBIN Y. MCMILLAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNKNOWN DOE; DETECTIVE BLAKE E. VAUGHT; DETECTIVE T. L.
HULSE; SECOND LIEUTENANT GEORGE DAVENPORT; FAIRFAX
COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 19-7563

ROBIN Y. MCMILLAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNKNOWN DOE; DETECTIVE BLAKE E. VAUGHT; DETECTIVE T. L.
HULSE; SECOND LIEUTENANT GEORGE DAVENPORT; FAIRFAX
COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01269-LO-IDD)

2

Submitted: April 16, 2020 Decided: April 20, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robin Y. McMillan, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Pace Baucom, Assistant County
Attorney, FAIRFAX COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

PER CURIAM:

Robin McMillan seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Although the order is immediately appealable, see Roberts v.
U.S. Dist. Court, 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950) (per curiam), we dismiss the appeal in No.
19-7537 as moot because shortly after denying McMillan’s in forma pauperis motion, the
district court dismissed her complaint with prejudice. See Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. City of
Alexandria, 608 F.3d 150, 161 (4th Cir. 2010).
In No. 19-7563, McMillan challenges the district court’s order dismissing her
complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because McMillan’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the
district court’s disposition, she 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.
DISMISSED IN PART AND
AFFIRMED IN PART