Markus Kenta Smith v. Unknown

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6418
MARKUS KENTA SMITH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:25-cv-00065-RCY-MRC)
Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 3, 2025
Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Markus Kenta Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Markus Kenta Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.1 The district court dismissed Smith’s § 2254 petition
because he failed to comply with the magistrate judge’s order to complete and submit the
standardized form for a § 2254 petition. In his informal brief, Smith does not contest the
district court’s basis for dismissing his § 2254 petition. He has thus forfeited appellate
review of the district court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review
to the issues raised in the informal brief.”); 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 deny a certificate of appealability as unnecessary, see Harbison v.
Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183 (2009), and affirm the district court’s order.2 Smith v. Unknown,
No. 3:25-cv-00065-RCY-MRC (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2025). 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
1 Smith’s initial filing was a letter alleging that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel in a state court proceeding. The magistrate judge construed it as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition based on its contents.
2 We observe that Smith has since filed a § 2254 petition using the proper form in a
pending case in the Eastern District of Virginia. Smith v. Dotson, No. 3:25-cv-00064-
RCY-MRC (E.D. Va., PACER No. 17).

-- 2 of 2 --