Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr. v. MICHAEL FLOYD PITTMAN, Estate of Michael Floyd Pittman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1364
WELDON EUGENE HOLTZCLAW, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL FLOYD PITTMAN, Estate of Michael Floyd Pittman; CAROLINA
BATH & KITCHEN INC., d/b/a Dreammaker Bath & Kitchen; LYNN PITTMAN,
Widow; LEE PRICKETT, Atty; LAW FIRM OF LEE PRICKETT; MELODIE
LANE; RANDY HORNSBY; MARK CAIN; DOUG DWYER; ADVISORY
TEAM OF DOUG DWYER; DREAMMAKER BATH AND KITCHEN
CORPORATE; WORLDWIDE REFINISHING; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;
S.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL; S.C. SECRETARY OF STATE; S.C. OFFICE OF
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL; ATTORNEY PACE, of Bryan, Colette, Faris and
Pace; LAW FIRM OF BRYAN, COLETTE, FARIS AND PACE; MARJORIE
MORGAN; MELLISA SPIVEY, Spivey Law Group; RANDY SKINNER, Skinner
Law Firm; JUDGE HELEN E. BURRIS, SC Bankruptcy Supreme Court Justice;
JUDGE TIMOTHY MADDEN, Greenville County Family Court; LAW FIRM FOR
DREAMMAKER CORPORATE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:25-cv-00025-DCC)
Submitted: September 18, 2025 Decided: September 22, 2025
Before THACKER and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Weldon Eugene Holtzclaw, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and summarily dismissing Holtzclaw’s 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Holtzclaw’s informal brief does not challenge the
bases 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 deny Holtzclaw’s motion for a directed verdict,
and 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

-- 3 of 3 --