UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7042

PHILIP M. SEBOLT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN A. PINDELSKI, in his individual capacity; STEPHANIE K. RUSH, in her 

individual capacity; ANDRES E. HERNANDEZ, in his individual capacity; 

DOUGLAS L. STINE, in his individual capacity; WILLIAM T. BICKART, in his 

individual capacity; ROB NAGLE, in his individual capacity; KELLI L. HECK, in 

her individual capacity; ANDREA R. WEISMAN, in her individual capacity; 

HOLLY ANDERSON, in her individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 20-6867

PHILIP M. SEBOLT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN A. PINDELSKI, in his individual capacity; STEPHANIE K. RUSH, in her 

individual capacity; ANDRES E. HERNANDEZ, in his individual capacity; 

DOUGLAS L. STINE, in his individual capacity; WILLIAM T. BICKART, in his 

individual capacity; ROB NAGLE, in his individual capacity; KELLI L. HECK, in 

her individual capacity; ANDREA R. WEISMAN, in her individual capacity; 

HOLLY ANDERSON, in her individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6867 Doc: 29 Filed: 07/20/2022 Pg: 1 of 6
2

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:17-cv-01212-AJT-MSN)

Submitted: May 20, 2022 Decided: July 20, 2022

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

No. 18-7042, dismissed; No. 20-6867, affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Philip Michael Sebolt, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6867 Doc: 29 Filed: 07/20/2022 Pg: 2 of 6
3

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Philip M. Sebolt appeals the district court’s orders 

dismissing his original and amended complaints for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We dismiss appeal No. 18-

7042 for lack of jurisdiction and affirm the district court’s judgment in appeal No. 20-6867.

As a threshold matter, we “have an independent obligation to verify the existence 

of appellate jurisdiction,” even if the parties do not raise the issue. Williamson v. Stirling, 

912 F.3d 154, 168 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). A case “may become 

moot during the pendency of an appeal when an intervening event makes it impossible for 

the court to grant effective relief to the prevailing party,” CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. 

v. Wynne, 792 F.3d 469, 474 (4th Cir. 2015), or “when the issues presented are no longer 

live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome,” Williams v. Ozmint, 

716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). When a case 

becomes moot, we are deprived of jurisdiction. Id. at 808-09.

Appeal No. 18-7042 challenges only the district court’s November 2017 order 

dismissing Sebolt’s original complaint. Upon our limited remand, the district court vacated 

that order and granted Sebolt leave to file an amended complaint that superseded the 

original complaint. Accordingly, we conclude that Sebolt’s appeal of the November 2017 

order is moot, and we dismiss No. 18-7042 for lack of jurisdiction.

Turning to No. 20-6867, Sebolt’s appeal of the district court’s April 2020 order 

dismissing his amended complaint, we review the district court’s dismissal order de novo, 

applying the same standards applicable to review of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal. 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6867 Doc: 29 Filed: 07/20/2022 Pg: 3 of 6
4

Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161, 166 (4th Cir. 2017); Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 248 

(4th Cir. 2017). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Carey 

v. Throwe, 957 F.3d 468, 474 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]n 

evaluating a complaint filed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915, a district court may 

consider a statute of limitations defense sua sponte when the face of the complaint plainly 

reveals the existence of such defense.” Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 656 (4th 

Cir. 2006).

Sebolt’s amended complaint alleged a Bivens* claim for deliberate indifference to 

his serious medical needs and two related negligence claims pursuant to the Federal Tort 

Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (FTCA). We apply the state’s personal 

injury statute of limitations to Bivens claims. Reinbold v. Evers, 187 F.3d 348, 359 n.10 

(4th Cir. 1999). Sebolt’s Bivens claim was subject to, at most, a two-year statute of 

limitations, running from the date the claim accrued. See A Soc’y Without A Name v. 

Virginia, 655 F.3d 342, 348 (4th Cir. 2011); 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/13-202; Va. Code 

Ann. § 8.01-243(A); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.140(1)(a); Mitchell v. Chapman, 343 F.3d 

811, 825 (6th Cir. 2003) (Kentucky); Delgado-Brunet v. Clark, 93 F.3d 339, 342 (7th Cir. 

1996) (Illinois). Sebolt also must have presented his FTCA claims to the Federal Bureau 

of Prisons (“BOP”) within two years after those claims accrued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); 

* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971).

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6867 Doc: 29 Filed: 07/20/2022 Pg: 4 of 6
5

28 C.F.R. § 14.2(a) (2021). Thus, to be timely, Sebolt’s Bivens claim must have accrued 

no earlier than October 5, 2015, two years prior to the filing of his original complaint. See 

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). And, Sebolt’s FTCA claims must have accrued 

no earlier than September 29, 2015, two years prior to the date he alleges that he presented 

his claims in writing to the BOP. 

“A federal cause of action accrues when the plaintiff possesses sufficient facts about 

the harm done to him that reasonable inquiry will reveal his cause of action.” Baldwin v. 

City of Greensboro, 714 F.3d 828, 839 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Put differently, federal law “conforms to common-law tort principles,” under which 

“accrual occurs when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action against a 

defendant—that is, when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of his injury.” Owens 

v. Balt. City State’s Atty’s Office, 767 F.3d 379, 389 (4th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up); see 

United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 120-22 (1979) (holding that FTCA medicalmalpractice claim accrues when plaintiff knows, or in exercise of due diligence should 

know, of both injury and its likely cause). 

Although “it is critical that the plaintiff know that he has been hurt and who inflicted 

the injury,” Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995) (en 

banc), a plaintiff’s cause of action accrues “when the wrongful act or omission results in 

damages,” “even though the full extent of the injury is not then known or predictable,” 

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 391 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Were it 

otherwise, the statute would begin to run only after a plaintiff became satisfied that he has 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6867 Doc: 29 Filed: 07/20/2022 Pg: 5 of 6
6

been harmed enough, placing the supposed statute of repose in the sole hands of the party 

seeking relief.” Id.

We have reviewed the record in light of these standards and find no reversible error 

in the district court’s determination that each of Sebolt’s claims accrued well before 

September 29, 2015. See id.; Owens, 767 F.3d at 389; see also Md. Shall Issue, Inc. v. 

Hogan, 963 F.3d 356, 361 (4th Cir. 2020) (describing standing); Scoggins v. Lee’s 

Crossing Homeowners Ass’n, 718 F.3d 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2013) (describing ripeness). 

Because we agree that Sebolt’s claims are facially time-barred, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment dismissing Sebolt’s 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. 

No. 18-7042, DISMISSED;

No. 20-6867, AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6867 Doc: 29 Filed: 07/20/2022 Pg: 6 of 6