Joseph Johnson v. Warden Casey Campbell; Dpscs Health Care Administration; Wexford Medical Services, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6863
JOSEPH JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN CASEY CAMPBELL; DPSCS HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION;
WEXFORD MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:18-cv-03131-GJH)
Submitted: October 31, 2022 Decided: December 1, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Lucas William Baker Chrencik, GOODELL DEVRIES
LEECH & DANN, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Wexford Medical Services,
Inc.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Johnson’s informal brief does not challenge the basis
for the district court’s disposition, instead simply reasserting facts he presented to the
district court, he 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.”).* In
any event, upon review of the record, we discern no reversible error in the district court’s
conclusion that Johnson’s Eighth Amendment rights were not violated in connection with
his medical care. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We further deny
Johnson’s motions to appoint counsel and for leave to file an amended complaint. 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
* To the extent Johnson raises new claims on appeal, those claims are not properly
before us. See Ballengee v. CBS Broad., Inc., 968 F.3d 344, 351 (4th Cir. 2020) (declining
to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal absent exceptional circumstances of
plain error or a fundamental miscarriage of justice).

-- 2 of 2 --