Clarence Gregory v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Incorporated

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2075 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-2075 CLARENCE SILVESTER GREGORY, Individual and individually named under the survivorship right statute as an surviving son (heir), et., and a real party/claimant of his (Father) decedent, William Jessie Gregory, Jr. Estate of William Jessie Gregory, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, a/k/a Reynolds American Incorporated, a/k/a The American Tobacco Company, a/k/a Brown & Williamson USA, Incorporated; PHILLIP MORRIS USA, INC., f/k/a Altria Group, Incorporated, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (7:20-cv-04257-JDA) Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 28, 2025 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence S. Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2075 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Clarence Silvester Gregory appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s prior judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Gregory does not challenge on appeal the basis for the district court’s ruling—that his Rule 60(b) motion failed to address the court’s prior finding that he failed to establish causation. Because Gregory’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2