Weldon Holtzclaw, Jr. v. Judge Stokes

USCA4 Appeal: 25-7022 Doc: 23 Filed: 04/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-7000

WELDON EUGENE HOLTZCLAW, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JUDGE STOKES; JUDGE STONE; WENDY MOSES; MARJORIE MORGAN; JERRI, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 25-7021

WELDON EUGENE HOLTZCLAW, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JUDGE STOKES; JUDGE STONE; WENDY MOSES; MARJORIE MORGAN; JERRI, Defendants - Appellees.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-7022 Doc: 23 Filed: 04/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

No. 25-7022

WELDON EUGENE HOLTZCLAW, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JUDGE STOKES; JUDGE STONE; WENDY MOSES; MARJORIE MORGAN; JERRI, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:25-cv-07499-DCC)

Submitted: April 23, 2026 Decided: April 28, 2026

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-7022 Doc: 23 Filed: 04/28/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to prosecute and denying several postjudgment motions to amend. 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 basis 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 pending appellate motions, and we affirm. 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