Theodore Justice v. McAngus Goudelock & Courie LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1241
THEODORE JUSTICE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MCANGUS GOUDELOCK & COURIE LLC; LUKE DALTON; SKYLAR J.
GALLAGHER; NORTH CAROLINA BAR ASSOCIATION; AMANDA E.
STEVENSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00392-D-BM)
Submitted: June 17, 2025 Decided: June 20, 2025
Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore Justice, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Justice appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and dismissing Justice’s civil complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Preliminarily, we grant Justice’s motion to file a supplemental informal
brief, but we deny his petition for initial hearing en banc.
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in the informal briefs, we have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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.”). Justice failed
to plausibly allege the defendants who were not state actors acted under the color of state
law, as required to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He did not plausibly allege those
defendants “conspire[d] for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating
. . . the due course of justice in [state court] with intent to deny to [him] the equal protection
of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to
enforce,” his right to equal protection. 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). Nor did he allege those
defendants were “motivated by a specific class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus,”
as necessary to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Strickland v. United States, 32
F.4th 311, 360 (4th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Justice v. McAngus Goudelock &
Courie LLC, No. 5:24-cv-00392-D-BM (E.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2025). We dispense with oral

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --