TA’KUAN BINGHAM, a/k/a Ta’Kaun Keontay Bingham v. JEFFEREY WILLIAM SHAW, Judge

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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 of 2 --