Mithun Banerjee v. Timothy Branigan

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1008 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1008 MITHUN BANERJEE, Debtor - Appellant, v. TIMOTHY P. BRANIGAN, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:23-cv-01509-PJM) Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 3, 2025 Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mithun Banerjee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1008 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Mithun Banerjee appeals the district court’s order dismissing his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s Administrative Order Rescinding the Electronic Document Submission System and denying as moot his motion to recuse the bankruptcy court judge and for an extension of time. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Banerjee’s informal brief argues only for the recusal of the bankruptcy court judge and does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his bankruptcy appeal or the determination that the recusal motion is moot, 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Banerjee v. Branigan, No. 8:23-cv-01509-PKM (D. Md. filed Nov. 26, 2024 & entered Nov. 27, 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 2