Background
Wilson Ochar, proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint against Truist Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing and also imposed a narrow prefiling injunction.
Ochar appealed the dismissal. He did not challenge the prefiling injunction in his appellate brief, so the Fourth Circuit treated appellate review of that portion of the district court’s order as forfeited.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. After reviewing the record, the panel found no reversible error in the determination that Ochar lacked standing.
The court also denied Ochar’s “motion to appeal.” It did not review the narrow prefiling injunction because Ochar failed to preserve any challenge to it in his informal brief. The panel decided the case without oral argument, concluding that argument would not aid the decisional process.
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Ochar’s complaint for lack of standing.
- A pro se appellant forfeits review of an issue not raised in the informal appellate brief.
- The court left the narrow prefiling injunction undisturbed because Ochar did not challenge it on appeal.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision underscores that standing is a threshold requirement and that an appellant must identify each challenged ruling in the appellate brief. Even for pro se litigants, the Fourth Circuit limits its review to issues properly preserved.