Kevin Michael Jones v. LELAND C. DUDEK, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1151
KEVIN MICHAEL JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LELAND C. DUDEK, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:23-cv-01033-PTG-JFA)
Submitted: December 20, 2024 Decided: April 10, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin Michael Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Michael Jones appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and dismissing without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction the amended complaint Jones filed in the underlying civil action, brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), against the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Jones’ informal brief does not challenge either aspect of
the district court’s dispositive jurisdictional ruling, or the court’s denial of Jones’ motions
to amend his complaint, we conclude that he has forfeited appellate review of the appealed-
from dismissal 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.”). We deny the pending motions to amend the case
caption, to access the original record, for affirmative relief, to correct and supplement the
record, for a new trial, for joinder, and for partial summary judgment, and further deny as
moot the pending motions to hold this case in abeyance and to consolidate this appeal with
a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
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 --