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 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 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 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 Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Brent King’s breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay claims against Texas Insurance Company. The court held that King, acting as receiver for Empirical Prime, LLC, failed to plausibly allege a “Claim” or “Loss” under the Directors and Officers Liability Policy, which are prerequisites for coverage. Under Missouri law, a breach of contract claim requires proof of a valid contract and its breach; here, the policy defined a “Claim” as a written demand against the insured, but King’s letters were demands directed at the insurer rather than the insured entity. Furthermore, the policy defined “Loss” as an amount the insured is legally obligated to pay, yet the complaint lacked allegations that any judgment or legal obligation to pay had been established against Empirical or its officers. Because the underlying receivership action had not resulted in such a legal obligation, no Loss occurred. The court also rejected King’s argument that the district court acted sua sponte, finding that Texas Insurance Company sufficiently raised the issues regarding the absence of a Claim and Loss in its motion to dismiss. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of leave to amend as futile, noting that any amended complaint would fail to cure these fundamental defects under the policy terms. Consequently, King’s vexatious refusal claim, which is derivative of the breach of contract claim, also failed.

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 Seventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

The seventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Cassandra Sykes’s complaint against Experian Information Solutions, Inc., for failure to state a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). The court held that Experian did not violate the FCRA by reporting both Sykes’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy discharge and an outstanding balance on her mortgage account stemming from a deed in lieu of foreclosure. The court applied the standard that while CRAs must follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy, they are not required to resolve legal disputes or interpret statutes and contracts. Relying on precedent such as *Denan v. Trans Union LLC* and *Chuluunbat v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.*, the court reasoned that determining whether Sykes’s mortgage debt was discharged in bankruptcy required complex legal analysis regarding the effect of the deed in lieu of foreclosure and the specific language of the discharge order. Because the discharge order did not explicitly address the mortgage and cautioned that determining the scope of the discharge could require legal analysis, the alleged inaccuracy or inconsistency was not an objectively verifiable fact apparent from available records. Consequently, Experian had no obligation to discern the legal status of the debt. As a result, Sykes’s claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the judgment of the district court stands.

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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-30

Docket: 2:24-cv-00509-CDS-BNW

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order remanding the case to the Social Security Administration and denying the plaintiff’s request for monetary damages. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding because the Administrative Law Judge failed to meaningfully discuss the application of Social Security Ruling 91-5p, necessitating further factual development to determine if prior applications should be reopened under that ruling. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of money damages, citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and *Schweiker v. Chilicky*, which establish that district courts lack the authority to award monetary damages for improper denials of Social Security benefits.

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