Background
Timothy Weldon Arthur, proceeding without counsel, filed a civil complaint against the State of South Carolina, the United States Probation Office, Richland County Law Enforcement, federal probation officer Bryant Sowell, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The opinion does not describe the complaint’s underlying allegations or requested relief.
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina accepted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and entered an amended order dismissing Arthur’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Arthur appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion. After reviewing the record, the panel found no reversible error and upheld the district court’s September 22, 2025 order.
The court limited its review to the issues raised in Arthur’s informal brief under Fourth Circuit Rule 34(b). Its footnote also recited the general rule that issues raised for the first time on appeal ordinarily are not considered absent exceptional circumstances; the opinion did not say that Arthur had raised any particular issue for the first time on appeal. The panel decided the case without oral argument because the written materials adequately presented the facts and legal contentions and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Arthur’s amended civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
- The panel found no reversible error but did not provide a detailed analysis of the complaint’s allegations or the grounds for dismissal.
- For a pro se appeal presented through an informal brief, Fourth Circuit review is limited to the issues raised in that brief.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the narrow scope of appellate review when a litigant uses the Fourth Circuit’s informal-brief procedure. Issues must be presented in the informal brief to receive appellate consideration.
Because the opinion is unpublished, it is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit. Its brief reasoning also limits its usefulness for understanding how § 1915(e)(2)(B) applied to Arthur’s particular claims.