Eugene Dingle v. LESLIE ARMSTRONG, Guardian Ad Litem of Dorchester County Family Court in her individual

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-2080
EUGENE DINGLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LESLIE ARMSTRONG, Guardian Ad Litem of Dorchester County Family Court in
her individual and official capacity; CANDICE LOREAL STERLING; SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT DIVISION; DORCHESTER COUNTY FAMILY COURT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (2:23-cv-04141-BHH)
Submitted: January 17, 2025 Decided: March 3, 2025
Before KING and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Dingle, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Dingle appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice Dingle’s civil complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and as frivolous, as well as the court’s order denying Dingle’s
motions for reconsideration. Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in
Dingle’s informal brief, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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 Dingle’s pending motions and
affirm the district court’s orders. Dingle v. Armstrong, No. 2:23-cv-04141-BHH (D.S.C.
Aug. 29, 2024; Oct. 8, 2024). 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 --