John Osborne Crandell, Iii v. National Archives and Records Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1957
JOHN OSBORNE CRANDELL, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:21-cv-00016-TSK-MJA)
Submitted: February 10, 2025 Decided: March 20, 2025
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Osborne Crandell, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
John Osborne Crandell, III, appeals the district court’s order on remand accepting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing with prejudice his civil action in
which he alleged a claim under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552.*
The district court dismissed Crandell’s FOIA claim for two reasons: (1) Crandell had not
exhausted his administrative remedies; and (2) Crandell failed to establish that the
documents he sought still existed, and he therefore could not show that the defendant
agency improperly withheld those documents.
In his informal brief, Crandell does not contest the district court’s ruling on
exhaustion. He has thus forfeited appellate review of that ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b)
(“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”); 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 affirm the district court’s order on that basis, but we modify the dismissal to be
without prejudice. See Moss v. Harwood, 19 F.4th 614, 623 n.3 (4th Cir. 2021) (explaining
that dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies should be without prejudice).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
* We previously remanded this case to the district court with instructions to review
de novo Crandell’s objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Crandell v. U.S.
Nat’l Archives & Records Admin., No. 22-1151, 2023 WL 1794150, at *1-2 (4th Cir.
Jan. 26, 2023).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

-- 3 of 3 --