USCA4 Appeal: 24-6864 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6864

BENJAMIN FORREST CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LT. F. RIGSBY, Sued in her individual and official capacity, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00006-MHL-MRC)

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

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Forrest Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6864 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Benjamin Forrest Carter appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant summary judgment in the underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action in which Carter alleged Defendant violated the First Amendment by retaliating against Carter for utilizing the prison grievance process. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error.

Specifically, our review of the record confirms that the district court did not err in finding there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to the causation element of Carter’s claim.

See Shaw v. Foreman, 59 F.4th 121, 130 (4th Cir. 2023) (explaining that, to establish causation in the context of a First Amendment retaliation claim, plaintiff bears the burden “to show that his protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor” in defendant’s action, which includes showing that defendant was “aware of his engaging in protected activity” (citation modified)).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Carter v. Rigsby, No. 3:23- cv-00006-MHL-MRC (E.D. Va. Aug. 9, 2024). 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