USCA4 Appeal: 24-1166 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/16/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1166

WILLIAM DAVID JONES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER, RICHMOND,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00288-MHL)

Submitted: September 24, 2025 Decided: October 16, 2025

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

Affirmed as modified in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William David Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1166 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/16/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

William David Jones appeals the district court’s orders (1) granting the defendant’s

motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment, and dismissing with

prejudice Jones’s second amended complaint, and (2) denying Jones’s motion for

reconsideration. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Jones’s informal

brief and supplements thereto, we discern no reversible error in the district court’s orders.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey,

(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 affirm the district court’s orders, Jones v. Dep’t of Def. Def.

Logistics Agency Def. Supply Ctr. Richmond, No. 3:21-cv-00288-MHL (E.D. Va. Sep. 1,

2023; Feb. 20, 2024), but we modify in part the district court’s order dismissing Jones’s

second amended complaint to reflect dismissal without prejudice of Jones’s claims that

were resolved on sovereign immunity grounds, see Lancaster v. Sec’y of Navy,

, 295 (4th Cir. 2024) (recognizing that, when federal sovereign immunity bars claim,

dismissal without prejudice is warranted). 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 AS MODIFIED IN PART

2