USCA4 Appeal: 25-1364 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1364

WELDON EUGENE HOLTZCLAW, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL FLOYD PITTMAN, Estate of Michael Floyd Pittman; CAROLINA BATH & KITCHEN INC., d/b/a Dreammaker Bath & Kitchen; LYNN PITTMAN, Widow; LEE PRICKETT, Atty; LAW FIRM OF LEE PRICKETT; MELODIE LANE; RANDY HORNSBY; MARK CAIN; DOUG DWYER; ADVISORY TEAM OF DOUG DWYER; DREAMMAKER BATH AND KITCHEN CORPORATE; WORLDWIDE REFINISHING; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; S.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL; S.C. SECRETARY OF STATE; S.C. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL; ATTORNEY PACE, of Bryan, Colette, Faris and Pace; LAW FIRM OF BRYAN, COLETTE, FARIS AND PACE; MARJORIE MORGAN; MELLISA SPIVEY, Spivey Law Group; RANDY SKINNER, Skinner Law Firm; JUDGE HELEN E. BURRIS, SC Bankruptcy Supreme Court Justice; JUDGE TIMOTHY MADDEN, Greenville County Family Court; LAW FIRM FOR DREAMMAKER CORPORATE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:25-cv-00025-DCC)

Submitted: September 18, 2025 Decided: September 22, 2025

Before THACKER and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1364 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/22/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1364 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/22/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and summarily dismissing Holtzclaw’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Holtzclaw’s informal brief does not challenge the bases 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 Holtzclaw’s motion for a directed verdict, and we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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