Karen Williams v. ALICIA SMITH, HCV Specialist of Raleigh Housing Authority

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2465
KAREN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALICIA SMITH, HCV Specialist of Raleigh Housing Authority; STEPHANIE
BECHAM, HCV Specialist Manager of Raleigh Housing Authority,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 25-2467
KAREN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ALICIA SMITH, HCV Specialist; STEPHANIE BECHAM, HCV Specialist
Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00674-BO-KS; 5:24-cv-00681-BO-
KS)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Submitted: April 23, 2026 Decided: April 27, 2026
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karen Williams, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Karen Williams appeals the district court’s orders
granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(4) and (5) motions and dismissing her
consolidated civil actions for failure to effect proper service. On appeal, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Williams’
informal briefs do not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, she 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s judgments. 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
* In the action undergirding appeal No. 25-2467, the district court initially adopted
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed a portion of Williams’ claims
before consolidating the actions. Williams does not challenge this dismissal ruling on
appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --