Saad Lodhi v. Officer Bradshaw; Fairfax County, Virginia; Fairfax County Police Department

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1886
SAAD LODHI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICER BRADSHAW; FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA; FAIRFAX COUNTY
POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00122-MSN-LRV)
Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Saad Usman Lodhi, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Saad Usman Lodhi appeals the district court’s order denying his second motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). In his informal brief, Lodhi asserts that another
judge granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate case filed in the district
court. Lodhi also complains that the court suddenly cancelled a hearing that was scheduled
to address his second motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Lodhi does not
challenge the court’s conclusion that, in this case, leave to proceed in forma pauperis was
unwarranted in light of his stated annual income. Because Lodhi’s informal brief therefore
fails to 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 --