CLARENCE SILVESTER GREGORY, Individual v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, a/k/a Reynolds American Incorporated,…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-2075
CLARENCE SILVESTER GREGORY, Individual and individually named under
the survivorship right statute as an surviving son (heir), et., and a real party/claimant
of his (Father) decedent, William Jessie Gregory, Jr. Estate of William Jessie
Gregory, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, a/k/a Reynolds
American Incorporated, a/k/a The American Tobacco Company, a/k/a Brown &
Williamson USA, Incorporated; PHILLIP MORRIS USA, INC., f/k/a Altria Group,
Incorporated,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Spartanburg. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (7:20-cv-04257-JDA)
Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 28, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence S. Gregory, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Clarence Silvester Gregory appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the court’s prior judgment granting summary judgment
in favor of Defendants. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Gregory does not challenge on appeal the basis for
the district court’s ruling—that his Rule 60(b) motion failed to address the court’s prior
finding that he failed to establish causation. Because Gregory’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 affirm the district court’s order. 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

-- 2 of 2 --