In re: BARBARA ALBYTINE GIBBS v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1794
In re: BARBARA ALBYTINE GIBBS,
Debtor,
M. EUGENE GIBBS,
Appellant,
v.
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:24-cv-06573-MGL)
Submitted: December 22, 2025 Decided: January 13, 2026
Before GREGORY and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melvin Eugene Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy Cook Hodges, Matthew Douglas
Patterson, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
M. Eugene Gibbs appeals the district court’s orders dismissing for lack of
jurisdiction his appeals from bankruptcy court orders and denying his motions to alter or
amend the judgment and for injunctive relief. In this court, Gibbs has filed an informal
opening brief, an informal reply brief, a motion to amend and supplement his informal
brief, and a reply to his motion to amend and supplement. We grant Gibbs’ motion to
amend and supplement his informal brief and have considered the arguments presented in
all of his filings.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal briefs. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gibbs’ informal brief as amended and supplemented does not
challenge the basis 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 Gibbs’ motion for clarification,
and we affirm the district court’s orders. Gibbs v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No.
4:24-cv-06573-MGL (D.S.C. June 12, 2025; July 1, 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 --