USCA4 Appeal: 23-1957 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1957

JOHN OSBORNE CRANDELL, III, Petitioner - Appellant, v. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:21-cv-00016-TSK-MJA)

Submitted: February 10, 2025 Decided: March 20, 2025

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Osborne Crandell, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1957 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: John Osborne Crandell, III, appeals the district court’s order on remand accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing with prejudice his civil action in which he alleged a claim under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. * The district court dismissed Crandell’s FOIA claim for two reasons: (1) Crandell had not exhausted his administrative remedies; and (2) Crandell failed to establish that the documents he sought still existed, and he therefore could not show that the defendant agency improperly withheld those documents.

In his informal brief, Crandell does not contest the district court’s ruling on exhaustion. He has thus forfeited appellate review of that ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”); 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.”).

We affirm the district court’s order on that basis, but we modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. See Moss v. Harwood, 19 F.4th 614, 623 n.3 (4th Cir. 2021) (explaining that dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be without prejudice).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

* We previously remanded this case to the district court with instructions to review de novo Crandell’s objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Crandell v. U.S. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin., No. 22-1151, 2023 WL 1794150, at *1-2 (4th Cir. Jan. 26, 2023).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1957 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/20/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED