Background
Sara Burrows and Bradley Jordan brought this action individually and as trustees for the Secret Garden of Eden Conservancy Trust. The appellate caption names PNC Bank, N.A.; Jeffrey Allen Bunda, Esquire; James Palmer, Substitute Trustee; and Hutchens Law Firm as defendants-appellees. It separately lists John Doe, Buyer, as a defendant. Burrows and Jordan represented themselves on appeal, while Maria Katharine Carisetti and Brian Michael Rowlson of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP appeared for an appellee.
The case reached the Fourth Circuit from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina at Asheville, where District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. presided over No. 1:25-cv-00340-MOC-WCM. The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. Burrows and Jordan appealed that order. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion identifies the underlying district-court decision as Burrows v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 1:25-cv-00340-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C. Feb. 18, 2026).
The appeal was submitted on October 7, 2026, and decided on November 4, 2026. The court issued an unpublished per curiam opinion before Circuit Judges Wynn, Richardson, and Berner. The opinion states that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. Its stated reasoning was limited: “We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error.” The court therefore affirmed the February 18, 2026 district-court order. The opinion does not set out the amended complaint’s claims, the defendants’ grounds for dismissal, or a claim-by-claim analysis of the district court’s reasoning.
The court also resolved two motions. It denied the motion for judicial notice and denied as moot the motion for an expedited decision. Those are distinct dispositions: the judicial-notice motion was denied, while the expedition motion was denied because it was moot. The opinion supplies no further explanation for either ruling.
In a footnote, the court addressed issues presented for the first time on appeal: “Insofar as Burrows and Jordan raise new issues on appeal, we decline to consider them.” It cited Tarashuk v. Givens, 53 F.4th 154, 167 (4th Cir. 2022), for the rule that the court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal absent exceptional circumstances. The footnote is limited to new issues raised on appeal; the opinion does not describe those issues or announce a broader rule about their underlying merits.
Finally, the court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before it and argument would not aid the decisional process. The judgment entered was “AFFIRMED.”
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Burrows and Jordan’s amended complaint after reviewing the record and finding no reversible error.
- The court denied the motion for judicial notice and separately denied the motion for an expedited decision as moot.
- New issues raised on appeal were not considered; the cited rule concerns issues raised for the first time on appeal absent exceptional circumstances.
- Oral argument was dispensed with because the submitted materials adequately presented the facts and legal contentions and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Why It Matters
The disposition leaves the district court’s dismissal with prejudice in place and resolves the pending appellate motions. It also distinguishes the court’s treatment of new appellate issues from its review of the dismissal order itself.
Because the opinion is unpublished and contains no substantive discussion of the amended complaint or the dismissal grounds, it provides no public claim-by-claim explanation beyond the court’s no-reversible-error determination. The opinion expressly notes that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.