Richard Clowney v. William Wilkins, III

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6336 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6187 RICHARD VANDALE CLOWNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WALKER MILLER; WALT WILKINS; ALAN WILSON; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; PEYTON SWANEY, Defendants - Appellees. No. 25-6336 RICHARD VANDALE CLOWNEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIAM WALTER WILKINS, III; ALAN WILSON; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; PEYTON SWANEY; WALKER MILLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:25-cv-00645-MGL) Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: August 1, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6336 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Vandale Clowney, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6336 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Richard Vandale Clowney appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Clowney’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Clowney’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 deny Clowney’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court’s order. Clowney v. State of South Carolina, No. 6:25-cv-00645-MGL (D.S.C. April 8, 2025). 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 3