Albert Anderson v. MCMILLIAN, Medical Provider

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6495
ALBERT ANDERSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MCMILLIAN, Medical Provider; ERIC DYE, Warden; JEFFREY DUNCAN,
Assistant Warden; ALEXANDER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Prison;
JANCY M. JOHNSON, Assistant Unit Manager; COOK, Correctional Officer;
COX, Nurse; SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS; DULA, Correction Officer;
JANE DOE, Nurse; TODD ISHEE, Commissioner; JOHN DOE, Custody
Operations; JOHN DOE 1, Correction Officer; JOHN DOE, Associate Warden for
Programs; JOHN DOE 2, Administrative Services Manager; JOHN DOE 2,
Correction Officer; GOINS, Sergeant; JANE DOE 1, Associate Warden for
Program; JANE DOE 2, Administrative Services Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00081-KDB)
Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 30, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Albert Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Albert Anderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action without prejudice on the grounds that it was duplicative of another action Anderson
had pending before the district court.∗ On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Anderson’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.
Anderson v. McMillian, No. 5:24-cv-00081-KDB (W.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 2024). Anderson’s
motion to consolidate cases is denied. 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
∗ The district court’s order is a final, appealable order because the court did not grant
Anderson leave to amend his complaint. Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022)
(en banc) (order).

-- 3 of 3 --