Daniel Thad Potts, Jr. v. Marley Engineered Products; Spx Technologies

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1508
DANIEL THAD POTTS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARLEY ENGINEERED PRODUCTS; SPX TECHNOLOGIES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (4:23-cv-04875-SAL)
Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 2, 2025
Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Thad Potts, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sarah M. Gable, OGLETREE DEAKINS,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Thad Potts, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Potts’s amended
complaint alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-
12213. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because the informal brief does not challenge the district court’s
equitable-tolling ruling, Potts has forfeited appellate review of that issue. 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.”). And
we decline to consider the arguments regarding the timeliness of the complaint, which Potts
presents for the first time in his informal brief. See Tarashuk v. Givens, 53 F.4th 154, 167
(4th Cir. 2022) (“It is well established that this court does not consider issues raised for the
first time on appeal, absent exceptional circumstances.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Potts v. Marley Engineered
Prods., No. 4:23-cv-04875-SAL (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 2025). 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 --