Dariush Rice v. Meritus Medical Center

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2024 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/29/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2024

DARIUSH A. RICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MERITUS MEDICAL CENTER; MAULIK JOSHI, in his Individual Capacity and Official Capacity as President of Meritus Health Hospital; DR. JOSHUA T.

MCLAIN, in his Individual Capacity and Official Capacity; ASIM SHABBIR, in his Individual Capacity and Official Capacity, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (1:24-cv-01208-BAH)

Submitted: June 25, 2026 Decided: June 29, 2026

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dariush A. Rice, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Murphy, III, WALKER, MURPHY & NELSON, LLP, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-2024 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/29/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Dariush A. Rice appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissing his civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1981 and the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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.”). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Rice has failed to demonstrate any reversible error in his informal brief. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Rice v. Meritus Med. Ctr., No. 1:24-cv-01208-BAH (D. Md. filed June 26, 2025 & entered June 27, 2025; Aug. 11, 2025). 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