USCA4 Appeal: 24-6837 Doc: 49 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6837

ERIC LAMONT SPANN, a/k/a Eric L. Spann, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAPTAIN GREENE, Defendant - Appellee, and WARDEN JACKSON; ASSOCIATE WARDEN TISDALE; WARDEN; JOEL ANDERSON, Director of SC Department of Corrections; LIEUTENANT LARGENT; MRS. PRINGLE; LIEUTENANT MCCULLOUGH; LIEUTENANT WELCH; LIEUTENANT ROBINSON; SERGEANT MCMILLIAN; OFFICER/SERGEANT SWEETENBURG, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. (8:23-cv-02240-DCN)

Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 2, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6837 Doc: 49 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Eric L. Spann, Appellant Pro Se. Drew Hamilton Butler, Charleston, South Carolina, Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6837 Doc: 49 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Eric Lamont Spann appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Spann’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Spann v. Greene, No. 8:23-cv-02240-DCN (D.S.C. Jul. 12, 2024).

Additionally, we deny Spann’s motions to add a new party to the case, to amend his original complaint, to include a terminated Defendant, to amend the case caption to change the first name of a terminated Defendant, and to establish personal involvement of all terminated Defendants, because these motions address matters that Spann failed to challenge in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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 also deny Spann’s motions for speedy trial, to appoint counsel, and for in-camera review. Finally, we deny Greene’s motion to strike Spann’s supplemental briefs.

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