Tommy Sevilla, individually v. AKIL ROSS, SR., Superintendent, Lexington-Richland 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1969
TOMMY SEVILLA, individually and as next friends of their minor children, L.S.,
G.S., and I.B.; MELODIE SEVILLA, individually and as next friends of their minor
children, L.S., G.S., and I.B.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
AKIL ROSS, SR., Superintendent, Lexington-Richland 5; KAREN HAMPTON,
Principal, Irmo High School; MANSA JOSEPH, Principal, Irmo Middle School;
AMANDA NEAL, School Staff, Irmo Middle; TEON PETREE, SR., Coach;
AARON BRAND, Football Coach; PAUL CALVERT, Athletic Director; JEANNA
LOCKLAIR, VP and 504 Coordinator; JINNI FRIEND; TAMARA TURNER;
REGGIE WICKER; STEVEN PUCKETT, District Athletic Director; JORDAN
INGRAM; GARY STEPHENS, Football Coach; BROOKS RAILEY; DEPUTY
CHRISTIAN FORERO, Lexington County Sheriff’s Office; ROSS WISE, Internal
Investigator; NESHUANDA WALTERS, 504 Administrator; AMANDA TAYLOR,
FOIA Officer; SUSAN NOLLER; JOHN DOE, Law Enforcement Officer (Gilbert
High); KEVIN SCULLY, LR5 Board Member; MATT SATTERFIELD, LR5 Board
Member; KIMBERLY SNIPES, LR5 Board Member; DAVID HERRING, LR5
Board Member; JONATHAN COLON, Custodian; MICHAEL HARRIS, Human
Resources; LEXINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE, Public Entity; COACH
MITCH HUDSON; UNNAMED ATHLETIC DIRECTOR; JEROME
SINGLETON; MICHAEL MONTGOMERY, SCHSL Officials; MICHELLE
SWINDLER, LR5 Administrator/English Teacher; DEPUTY ANTHONY,
Lexington County Sheriff’s Office; MRS. BLACKBURN, White Knoll High
School; SAFESPORT; NFHS; SCHSL, Governing Bodies,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (3:25-cv-03528-JDA-SVH)

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Submitted: October 24, 2025 Decided: November 19, 2025
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tommy Sevilla, Melodie Sevilla, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Tommy Sevilla and Melodie Sevilla seek to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Appellants’
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel in their civil
action. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. We also deny the pending motions.*
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The district court’s denial
of Appellants’ motion for appointment of counsel is neither a final order nor an appealable
interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of the appeal.
We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. See Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950). We
review the denial for abuse of discretion. See Dillard v. Liberty Loan Corp., 626 F.2d 363,
364 (4th Cir. 1980). “‘A district court abuses its discretion if its conclusion is guided by
erroneous legal principles or rests upon a clearly erroneous factual finding.’” Austin v.
Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 148 F.4th 194, 202 (4th Cir. 2025). “‘At its immovable core, the
abuse of discretion standard requires a reviewing court to show enough deference to a
primary decision-maker’s judgment that the court does not reverse merely because it would
* We note that our denial of Appellants’ motion to seal is without prejudice to any
motion they may file in the district court, see 4th Cir. R. 25(c)(2) (requiring that motions
to seal the record be filed and resolved in the district court), and Appellants must comply
with the rules for filing confidential and sealed material on appeal, see 4th Cir. R. 25(c)(3).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
have come to a different result in the first instance.’” Id. We have reviewed the record
and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’
motion to proceed in forma pauperis; and we affirm this portion of the district court’s order.
See Sevilla v. Ross, No. 3:25-cv-03528-JDA-SVH (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 2025).
We therefore dismiss the portion of this appeal challenging the district court’s denial
of Appellants’ motion for appointment of counsel, and we affirm the district court’s denial
of their motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.
DISMISSED IN PART,
AFFIRMED IN PART

-- 4 of 4 --