Nicole Abrams-Kelly v. Department of Treasury

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1297 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/25/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1297 NICOLE ABRAMS-KELLY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and GLOBAL EXISTENCE FOUNDATION, c/o Nicole Abrams-Kelly; BRIEL KELLY; MILAN KELLY, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Internal Revenue Service Chief Counsel; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, State Auditor - William Raymond Jr.; NC STATE TREASURER’S OFFICE-LEGAL, Will Spicer; THOMAS J. MARSHALL, USPS General Counsel/Executive VP; VETERANS AFFAIRS - NAVY, HQ Central Office; U.S. VETERANS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, NAVY/Marine Records; NORTH CAROLINA VETERANS AFFAIRS, Department of Military and NAVY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, (FSC)- Pact Act Hazard Pay, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. (3:24-cv-01131-FDW-DCK) Submitted: August 21, 2025 Decided: August 25, 2025 Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1297 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/25/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicole Abrams-Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1297 Doc: 21 Filed: 08/25/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Nicole Abrams-Kelly appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her civil complaint for failing to pay the filing fee. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Abrams-Kelly’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, she 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 judgment. 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