Deborah Morris; Arnell Mason v. Baltimore City, c/o Mayor

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1319
DEBORAH MORRIS; ARNELL MASON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
BALTIMORE CITY, c/o Mayor and City Council; BALTIMORE DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT; HOUSING AUTHORITY OF
BALTIMORE CITY; MEMORIAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LP;
SOMERSET DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC; SOMERSET DEVELOPMENT, LLC-
DOMESTIC, LLC; HABITAT AMERICA, LP,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Julie R. Rubin, District Judge. (1:25-cv-00968-JRR)
Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: July 31, 2025
Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deborah Morris, Arnell Mason, Appellants Pro Se. Renita Lynne Collins, Chief Solicitor,
BALTIMORE CITY SOLICITOR’S OFFICE, Baltimore, Maryland; Michael Patrick
Redmond, Hanna Marie C. Sheehan, Office of Legal Affairs, BALTIMORE CITY LAW
DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland; Peter J. Basile, Robert Lawrence Ferguson, Jr.,
FERGUSON, SCHETELICH & BALLEW, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Dennis Chong,

-- 1 of 3 --

2
CARR MALONEY, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Deborah Morris and Arnell Mason (Plaintiffs) appeal the district court’s order
dismissing their civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim after a review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Plaintiffs’ informal brief does not challenge the basis
for the district court’s disposition, they have forfeited appellate review of the appealed-
from 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 order.
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
* We deny as moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary
affirmance.

-- 3 of 3 --