Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-27

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of Jerome Andrew Burnett’s complaint alleging violations of his civil and constitutional rights, as well as the denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the subsequent denial of reconsideration. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error supporting the lower court’s procedural rulings. As a practical consequence, the district court’s dismissal stands, ending Burnett’s federal litigation on these claims without oral argument or further appellate review.

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: 2026-07-27

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment imposing a 130-month prison sentence followed by three years of supervised release on Chadiez White for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The court applied the abuse-of-discretion standard to review the sentence, first assessing procedural reasonableness by verifying that the district court correctly calculated the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, provided the parties an opportunity to be heard, considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and sufficiently explained the chosen sentence. The court found no procedural error, noting that while the district court rejected arguments regarding White’s youthfulness as grounds for a departure or variance, it acknowledged these factors and balanced them against aggravating circumstances. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court applied the presumption that a within-Guidelines-range sentence is reasonable, finding nothing in the record to rebut this presumption. Additionally, pursuant to *Anders v. California*, the court reviewed the entire record and determined there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, directing counsel to inform White of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review.

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: 2026-07-27

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiff’s discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination claims brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213. The court reviewed the record and determined that no reversible error occurred in the district court’s ruling. Consequently, the judgment in favor of Amurcon Realty Company stands, and the plaintiff’s claims are dismissed 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: 2026-07-27

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Michael T. Moore’s civil rights complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, thereby denying Moore’s motion to expedite the decision. As an unpublished per curiam opinion, this ruling is not binding precedent within the circuit.

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: 2026-07-27

The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the underlying order from the magistrate judge was not a final, appealable order. The court held that under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 1292, it may only exercise jurisdiction over final orders or specific interlocutory and collateral orders. Since the parties had not consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction and the district court had not adopted or acted on the order, the magistrate judge’s ruling was deemed a nullity that did not constitute a final judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed 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: 2026-07-27

The fourth-circuit dismissed Stephen Nivens’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction and declined to transfer the case to the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The court applied the standard established in *Dragenice v. Ridge*, 389 F.3d 92, 100 (4th Cir. 2004), determining that it lacked authority to hear the petition and that transfer was not appropriate. Consequently, the petition is dismissed without a decision on the merits, and no further relief is granted or transferred for district court review.

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: 2026-07-27

The fourth-circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case for resentencing because the district court erroneously denied the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to self-representation at sentencing. The court held that a request to proceed pro se made after a trial verdict but before a sentencing hearing is timely as a matter of law, provided it is clear, unequivocal, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The appellate court reasoned that unlike requests made during an ongoing trial which risk disruption, a pre-sentencing request does not implicate the same concerns regarding delay or inconvenience because there is typically a substantial period between conviction and sentencing to address such motions without prejudice. Consequently, the district court’s reliance on the “untimeliness” of the request—based solely on the fact that it was made months after the trial concluded but before sentencing was scheduled—constituted legal error. The court further noted that the deprivation of the right to self-representation is not subject to harmless error analysis, necessitating a remand for a new sentencing hearing where the district court must conduct a full *Faretta* inquiry to determine if the defendant’s waiver of counsel was valid. The court declined to address the defendant’s separate argument regarding an Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement.

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: 2026-07-27

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s civil action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court found no reversible error in the dismissal and determined that the plaintiff’s challenges regarding judicial bias lacked colorable support, while his constitutional challenges to the statute were without merit under established precedent. As a result of this affirmation, the district court’s dismissal remains in effect, and the case is closed without further proceedings.

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: 2026-07-27

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Kent J. Ashton’s civil action against the Federal Aviation Administration for lack of standing. The court held that Ashton failed to demonstrate a concrete injury in fact, which is required to establish Article III standing. Applying a standard of review that found no reversible error in the lower court’s determination, the appellate court concluded that the dismissal was proper and affirmed the judgment without oral argument. Consequently, the district court’s dismissal remains in effect, ending Ashton’s challenge on jurisdictional grounds.

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: 2026-07-27

The fourth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying the appellants’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for reconsideration of a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court applied the standard that an appellate panel reviewing the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion may not review the merits of the underlying dismissal order, particularly where the notice of appeal was filed more than 28 days after the original dismissal and thus only covered the subsequent denial of the motion. Consequently, the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction remains in effect, and the appellants’ complaint is not reinstated.

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