Mithun Banerjee v. Timothy Branigan

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1873 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1869 MITHUN BANERJEE, Debtor - Appellant, and MALANCHA BANERJEE, Debtor, v. TIMOTHY P. BRANIGAN, Trustee - Appellee. No. 24-1873 MITHUN BANERJEE, Debtor - Appellant, v. TIMOTHY P. BRANIGAN, Trustee - Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1873 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:23-cv-03512-DLB; 8:24-cv-00270-DLB) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1873 Doc: 30 Filed: 11/03/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Mithun Banerjee appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice two appeals from bankruptcy court orders based on his failure to comply with the district court’s order to either pay the filing fee or file a properly supported application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal briefs. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Banerjee’s informal briefs argue for the recusal of the bankruptcy court judge and do not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, 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 deny Banerjee’s motions to strike Appellee’s informal response brief and related docket entries, and we affirm the district court’s order dismissing these two bankruptcy appeals. Banerjee v. Branigan, Nos. 8:23-cv-03512- DLB, 8:24-cv-00270-DLB (D. Md. filed Sep. 5, 2024 & entered Sep. 6, 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 3