Jeffrey Corporal v. Donaldson

── Jeffrey Corporal v. Donaldson ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 24-6159 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6159 JEFFREY CORPORAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER DONALDSON; LIEUTENANT PENNINGTON; BUTLER, Assistant Warden; WARDEN WEBER; COMMISSIONER HILL; SECRETARY GREEN; SECURITY CHIEF ARNOLD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-03357-DKC) Submitted: April 29, 2026 Decided: May 28, 2026 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Corporal, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony G. Brown, Attorney General, Jessica E. Burns, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6159 Doc: 17 Filed: 05/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Corporal appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. * This case returns to us after a limited remand related to the timeliness of Corporal’s notice of appeal. The district court determined that Corporal satisfied Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)’s requirements for an extension of the appeal period, and we are satisfied of our jurisdiction over this appeal. Confining our review of the record to the issues raised in Corporal’s informal brief, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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 orders. Corporal v. Pennington, No. 1:20-cv-03357-DKC (D. Md. July 30, 2021; Sep. 22, 2023; Jan. 12, 2024). 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 dismissed Corporal’s prior appeal of the district court’s first dismissal order because we found that the court had not adjudicated all of Corporal’s claims. See Corporal v. Pennington, No. 21-7177, 2023 WL 110556, at *1 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023). 2