Charles Gillis v. United States

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1367 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1367 CHARLES M. GILLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00534-D-BM) Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: July 31, 2025 Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Murphy Gillis, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1367 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Charles Gillis appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint. In his complaint, Gillis alleged that court officials and an attorney knowingly used perjured testimony to secure a conviction against him and that the court reporter falsified the trial transcripts. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim, as barred by res judicata, and because it amounted to an untimely motion to overrule the jury’s verdict. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. First, to the extent Gillis’s informal brief can be liberally construed as arguing that his complaint stated claims for relief, we conclude that his allegations were too conclusory to raise a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (discussing plausibility standard). Second, even when liberally construed, Gillis’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s other reasons for dismissing his complaint. We therefore conclude that he has waived appellate review of the district court’s ruling. See Brown v. Nucor Corp., 785 F.3d 895, 918 (4th Cir. 2015) (“Failure of a party in its opening brief to challenge an alternate ground for a district court’s ruling waives that challenge.” (citation modified)); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”); 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Gillis v. United States, No. 5:24- cv-00534-D-BM (E.D.N.C. Apr. 1, 2025). We dispense with oral argument because the 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1367 Doc: 5 Filed: 07/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3