Huberto Espindola-Soto, a/k/a Felix Hernandez v. Officer One, unknown name, Virginia’s Piedmont Regional Jail

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6008
HUBERTO ESPINDOLA-SOTO, a/k/a Felix Hernandez,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER ONE, unknown name, Virginia’s Piedmont Regional Jail; OFFICER TWO,
unknown name, Virginia’s Piedmont Regional Jail,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
TRACY JOHNS, Warden,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00577-HEH-RCY)
Submitted: May 23, 2019 Decided: May 29, 2019
Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Huberto Espindola-Soto, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Huberto Espindola-Soto appeals the district court’s order under Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b), dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice because he
failed to submit a fee collection form as ordered by the court. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal because the district court dismissed Espindola-Soto’s complaint for
procedural reasons unrelated to the contents of his pleadings, see Goode v. Cent. Va.
Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d. 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015), but limit our review to the
issues raised in Espindola-Soto’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because his informal brief
does not challenge the basis for the district court’s dismissal, Espindola-Soto has
forfeited appellate review of the order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th
Cir. 2014). 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

-- 2 of 2 --