Christopher Lumpkin v. Sussex Istate Prison

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6141
CHRISTOPHER LUMPKIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
MICHAEL TAYLOR; GEORGE H. SPIKER, JR.; CLAYTON FELTON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SUSSEX I STATE PRISON; RINER, Nurse Practitioner; KING, Doctor; A.
WETHINGTON, Unit Manager; KEVIN MCCOY, Warden; T. GREEN, Assistant
Warden; TURNER, Captain,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 24-6142
CHRISTOPHER DEWAYNE LUMPKIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHADWICK DOTSON, Dir., Virginia Department of Corrections; VIRGINIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL; KEN BALDASSARI, Assistant Attorney General;
PETRA B. HASKINS, Commonwealth Attorney; MIKE NEWMAN,
Commonwealth Attorney; JAMES C. MARTIN, Attorney, VSB 27968, Martin &
Martin Law Firm,

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:23-cv-00668-JAG-MRC; 3:23-
cv-00669-JAG-MRC)
Submitted: July 25, 2024 Decided: July 30, 2024
Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Dewayne Lumpkin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Christopher Dewayne Lumpkin appeals the district
court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints for failure to
comply with the court’s orders to either pay the initial partial filing fee or demonstrate that
he could not. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lumpkin’s informal briefs do not challenge the basis for
the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. 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.”). We therefore affirm the district court’s orders. We also deny Lumpkin’s motion,
filed in No. 24-6142, to consolidate the appeal with Lumpkin’s appeal in No. 24-6143, as
the latter appeal is no longer pending with this court. 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

-- 3 of 3 --