Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
25-2371•PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit v. GOVERNOR WES MOORE, D- Maryland
25-2371Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit27.04.2026
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2371
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.
GOVERNOR WES MOORE, D- Maryland; AISHA BRAVEBOY, Prince George’s
County Executive; CONGRESSMAN JAMIE RASKIN, D-Maryland; SENATOR
ANGELA ALSOBROOKS, D-Maryland; SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, D-
Maryland; ANTHONY BROWN, Maryland Attorney General,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (3:25-cv-10430-DCC)
Submitted: April 23, 2026 Decided: April 27, 2026
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit (who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number
P60005535) appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and dismissing his civil complaint for improper venue. On appeal, we
confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Emrit’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 judgment. 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 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.