Yared Tesfaye, a/k/a Tesfaye Kassaye Abebe v. State of Maryland; Chief Executive Officer, Springfield Hospital Center

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6066
YARED TESFAYE, a/k/a Tesfaye Kassaye Abebe,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SPRINGFIELD
HOSPITAL CENTER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00459-CCB)
Submitted: June 28, 2022 Decided: July 1, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yared Tesfaye, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen A. Ellis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Yared Tesfaye appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his
case. Appellee State of Maryland moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction,
arguing that the notice of appeal was untimely with respect to the district court’s dismissal
of Tesfaye’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. However, Tesfaye’s notice of appeal was filed
within the requisite time period with respect to the district court’s December 20, 2021,
order denying Tesfaye’s motion to reopen the case—the order identified in his notice of
appeal. We therefore deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Tesfaye’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.”). 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 --