Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Maria Cherniavska

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1151 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 26-1151

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit; PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE/POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE/SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (SSF) NUMBER C00569897, d/b/a United Emrits of America, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MARIA CHERNIAVSKA, of Warsaw, Poland (Future First Lady of United States by 2028 in a Parallel Universe); VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, President of Ukraine; ALEXEI NAVALNY, Estate of; DARYA IGNATEVA, of Kyiv, Ukraine; KATERYNA OLOKOBA, of Kherson, Ukraine; ERIN BURNETT, Outfront of Cable News Network (CNN); INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE OF HAGUE, Netherlands; UNITED NATIONS, UN; WORLD BANK; INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, IMF; COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:26-cv-00015-MR-WCM)

Submitted: May 21, 2026 Decided: May 27, 2026

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1151 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 26-1151 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/27/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Ronald Satish Emrit (who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number P60005535) appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and imposing a prefiling review requirement on any future filings. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s frivolity determination, as Emrit’s complaint failed to present a coherent claim for relief. Furthermore, Emrit’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s imposition of the prefiling review limitation. He has therefore forfeited appellate review of that ruling. 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 affirm the district court’s orders. Presidential Candidate No. P60005535 v. Cherniavska, No. 1:26-cv-00015-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2026; Feb.

9, 2026). 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