Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

Docket: 1:26-cv-00456-SDG

The eleventh-circuit dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that it lacked authority to review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation because the order was not final; specifically, the recommendation had not been adopted by the district court and did not end the litigation on the merits. Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, a magistrate judge’s unadopted recommendation is not immediately appealable. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff filing a proper notice of appeal after a final judgment is entered by the district court.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

Docket: 5:22-cv-00620-LCB

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ admiralty claims against the United States but reversed and remanded the dismissal of claims against the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The court held that the Suits in Admiracy Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity is subject to an implicit discretionary-function exception under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent (*Williams v. United States*). Applying the two-part test from *United States v. Gaubert*, the court determined that the government’s decisions regarding whether to mark, remove, or warn of the unmarked duck blind involved elements of judgment and choice susceptible to policy analysis, thereby shielding the United States from liability. However, the court concluded that the TVA Act’s sue-and-be-sued clause provides an independent basis for jurisdiction that is not barred by the discretionary-function exception, as recognized in *Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority*. Because the SAA’s exclusivity provision only applies when a remedy is provided under that act, and the SAA claim was barred, plaintiffs may proceed against the TVA under the TVA Act. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

Docket: 4:24-CV-00084-AMA)

The tenth-circuit denied a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismissed the appeal. The court applied the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), requiring a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and determined that no reasonable jurist would find it debatable whether the district court correctly ruled on procedural grounds. The court held that Wood’s most recent application constituted an unauthorized second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), as his prior application had been adjudicated on the merits, thereby stripping the district court of jurisdiction to consider the claims. Additionally, the court rejected Wood’s arguments regarding a standalone actual innocence claim and the miscarriage-of-justice gateway, noting that Congress constrained such applications under § 2244(b)(2). Consequently, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to seeking proper authorization for successive petitions.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The fourth-circuit affirmed Bobby Lee Fish, Jr.’s conviction and 235-month within-Guidelines sentence. The court held that there was no clear error in the magistrate judge’s finding of competency, which was supported by a qualified forensic psychologist’s report and unrebutted by Fish. Applying plain error review, the court found no error in the failure to sua sponte reconsider the competency determination or in the magistrate judge’s assumption of authority to enter the competency order, as these did not affect Fish’s substantial rights. Additionally, the court found no plain error in the district court’s discretionary decision not to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines based on Fish’s mental health issues. The conviction and sentence stand affirmed without oral argument.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The fourth-circuit denied Gregory Clinton’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to docket and rule on his motion for compassionate release. The court held that while the prefiling injunction entered against Clinton did not bar the filing of his motion because it applied only to civil complaints and petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, mandamus relief was inappropriate under the applicable legal standard. The court applied the strict requirements for extraordinary mandamus relief, which require the petitioner to demonstrate no other adequate means to attain relief, a clear and indisputable right to that relief, and that issuance is appropriate under equitable principles and the interest of justice. The court concluded that Clinton failed to satisfy these criteria due to his years-long abuse of the court system, including frivolous litigation and threats against court personnel, which meant he did not come to court with “clean hands.” Additionally, the district court had indicated it would deny the motion as meritless if filed, meaning granting mandamus would not effect right and justice. As a result, the petition was denied, leaving the district court’s refusal to docket the motion in place.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against North Carolina’s Session Law 2024-31, which restricts the sale of electronic nicotine delivery systems (vapes) in the state. The court held that the Commercial Appellants possessed Article III standing because they faced a concrete and particularized financial injury—specifically, lost revenue and potential fines—that was traceable to the state’s enforcement of the law and redressable by judicial relief. The court rejected the argument that plaintiffs lack standing when their conduct also violates an unchallenged federal law, clarifying that Article III requires only a cognizable injury, not a legally protected right to engage in the regulated activity. On the merits, the court ruled that the Appellants were unlikely to succeed on their claim that the state law was preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA). The court determined that the TCA’s “Preservation Clause” and “Savings Clause” expressly allow states to enact laws regulating the sale of tobacco products that are more stringent than federal requirements. Furthermore, the court found that the state law did not violate 21 U.S.C. § 337(a), which grants the FDA exclusive enforcement authority over the FDCA, because North Carolina was enforcing its own sales regulations rather than attempting to enforce federal pre-market approval requirements. The court also concluded that the state law did not stand as an obstacle to federal objectives, as Congress intended for states to retain traditional police powers over tobacco sales even while the FDA regulates product standards. The practical consequence is that the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction stands, allowing North Carolina to proceed with enforcing its vape directory and sales restrictions. The Appellants may continue to litigate the preemption claim on the merits during the full trial, but they are not entitled to an immediate halt of the state law at this stage.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Robert Paul Sharpe’s appeal from a bankruptcy court order approving a settlement agreement. The court applied the standard set forth in *In re Serra Builders*, 970 F.2d 1309 (4th Cir. 1992), which requires consideration of four specific factors to determine whether an appeal should be dismissed for failure to comply with procedural rules. Limiting its review to issues preserved in Sharpe’s informal brief, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that these factors weighed in favor of dismissal. The practical consequence is that the district court’s dismissal order stands, and related motions for a stay pending appeal, an emergency motion to show cause, and an application to proceed without prepayment of fees were denied or rendered moot.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The fourth-circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants BFJ of USA, LLC and its members, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the district court erred in ruling that the CERCLA petroleum exclusion barred plaintiff Harris Investment Holdings’ claims as a matter of law. Under CERCLA, a defendant bears the burden of proving that released substances fall within the petroleum exclusion, which excludes unadulterated petroleum but not petroleum contaminated with non-petroleum hazardous substances. The appellate court determined that evidence of a leaking underground storage tank containing waste oil raised a genuine question of fact regarding whether the petroleum was contaminated with hazardous substances such as chromium, thereby preventing summary judgment on the CERCLA claims. Additionally, the court found that expert testimony establishing causation for state-law negligence, nuisance, and trespass claims survived summary judgment, noting that while the district court properly excluded certain late-disclosed portions of an expert declaration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), it should have reconsidered whether specific factual statements in that declaration constituted a proper supplementation under Rule 26(e)(1)(A). Consequently, the case is remanded for trial or further proceedings on both federal and state claims.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The fifth-circuit granted the Federal Public Defender’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal. The court applied the standard established in *Anders v. California* and *United States v. Flores*, concluding that after reviewing counsel’s brief and the relevant record, the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review. Consequently, counsel was excused from further responsibilities and the case was closed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The fifth-circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely because the defendant’s notice of appeal failed to comply with the time limits set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1). The court applied the mandatory duty to dismiss established in *Eberhart v. United States*, 546 U.S. 12, 18 (2005), when a party properly seeks to enforce such time limits. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, the government’s motion to dismiss was granted, and its remaining motions were denied.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.