Nicole Abrams-Kelly v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Internal Revenue Service Chief Counsel

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1297
NICOLE ABRAMS-KELLY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
GLOBAL EXISTENCE FOUNDATION, c/o Nicole Abrams-Kelly; BRIEL
KELLY; MILAN KELLY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Internal Revenue Service Chief Counsel;
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State Auditor - William
Raymond Jr.; NC STATE TREASURER’S OFFICE-LEGAL, Will Spicer;
THOMAS J. MARSHALL, USPS General Counsel/Executive VP; VETERANS
AFFAIRS - NAVY, HQ Central Office; U.S. VETERANS AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT, NAVY/Marine Records; NORTH CAROLINA VETERANS
AFFAIRS, Department of Military and NAVY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS, (FSC)- Pact Act Hazard Pay,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. (3:24-cv-01131-FDW-DCK)
Submitted: August 21, 2025 Decided: August 25, 2025
Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicole Abrams-Kelly, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Nicole Abrams-Kelly appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
her civil complaint for failing to pay the filing fee. On appeal, we confine our review to
the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Abrams-Kelly’s
informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, she 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

-- 3 of 3 --