John Roosevelt Baccus, family members, attorneys, judges v. the Unified Criminal Justice Systems, team of legal leaders, officers of court

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6038
JOHN ROOSEVELT BACCUS, family members, attorneys, judges and other
protestors of, or involved in commitment orders of #2000 GS 33 004, to the general
public as “Plaintiffs,”
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE UNIFIED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS, team of legal leaders, officers of
court, and prisoners records; ALAN M. WILSON, South Carolina Attorney
General’s Office; CHARLIE M. CONDON, South Carolina Attorney General’s
Office; JEAN HOEFER TOAL, the South Carolina Chief Justice; EDGAR L.
CLEMENTS, III, the 12th Circuit Solicitor; JUDGE JAMES E. BROGDON, JR.,
the 12th Circuit Judge; VON DEAN TURBEVILLE, investigator; BARRY
PROSSER, Florence County Sheriff’s Department; DONALD BEATTY, the South
Carolina Chief Justice; MICHAEL J. NETTLES, the 12th Circuit Judge; PAUL
MICHAEL BURCH, the 12th Circuit Judge; WILLIAM P. KEESLEY, the 12th
Circuit Judge; JOCELYN T. NEWMAN, the 12th Circuit Judge; TURBEVILLE
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; MARION COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; JOHN BLACK, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division;
BRIAN WALLACE, Marion County Sheriff’s Department; ELIZABETH
FRANKLIN-BEST, Esq., Attorney at Law; JUDGE DAVID C. NORTON;
MAGISTRATE JUDGE BRISTOW MARCHANT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:24-cv-03745-DCN)
Submitted: August 21, 2025 Decided: August 26, 2025

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Roosevelt Baccus, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
John Roosevelt Baccus appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised
in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Baccus’s informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition that he failed to state a claim, he has
forfeited appellate review of the court’s judgment. 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 deny
Baccus’s motions: to file an amicus brief, compel production of a videotape, for production
of a transcript at the Government’s expense, for judicial notice of his motions, and to
appoint counsel; to enforce his civil rights; raising restrictive covenants and public outcry
concerns; requesting an emergency conference hearing; and 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

-- 3 of 3 --