William David Jones v. Department of Defense Defense Logistics Agency Defense Supply Center, Richmond

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1166
WILLIAM DAVID JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY DEFENSE
SUPPLY CENTER, RICHMOND,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00288-MHL)
Submitted: September 24, 2025 Decided: October 16, 2025
Before WILKINSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed as modified in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William David Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
William David Jones appeals the district court’s orders (1) granting the defendant’s
motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment, and dismissing with
prejudice Jones’s second amended complaint, and (2) denying Jones’s motion for
reconsideration. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Jones’s informal
brief and supplements thereto, we discern no reversible error in the district court’s orders.
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.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders, Jones v. Dep’t of Def. Def.
Logistics Agency Def. Supply Ctr. Richmond, No. 3:21-cv-00288-MHL (E.D. Va. Sep. 1,
2023; Feb. 20, 2024), but we modify in part the district court’s order dismissing Jones’s
second amended complaint to reflect dismissal without prejudice of Jones’s claims that
were resolved on sovereign immunity grounds, see Lancaster v. Sec’y of Navy, 109 F.4th
283, 295 (4th Cir. 2024) (recognizing that, when federal sovereign immunity bars claim,
dismissal without prejudice is warranted). 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 AS MODIFIED IN PART

-- 2 of 2 --