Court Opinion

ID: 9957245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 21:01:22.807056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:14.751089
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7214      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/02/2024      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7214

        REV. THOMAS L. DAVIS,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        BROOKS P. GOLDSMITH, Judge of Circuits Courts/Retired; RACHEL
        DEANGELIS, Asst. Solicitor/State Prosecutor; CHRISTIAN D. ANDERSON,
        Beaufort County Sheriff Dept.; CARMEN T. MULLEN, 14th Circuit Court Judge,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
        Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (9:23-cv-03059-BHH)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                           Decided: April 2, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Thomas Louis Davis, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7214      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Rev. Thomas L. Davis appeals the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing with prejudice his pro se amended

        complaint. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. * Accordingly,

        we affirm the district court’s order. Davis v. Goldsmith, No. 9:23-cv-03059-BHH (D.S.C.

        filed Nov. 15, 2023 & entered Nov. 16, 2023). 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

               *
                 Davis’ informal brief does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that some
        of his claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Accordingly, he has
        forfeited appellate review of that aspect of the district 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.”).

                                                    2