Dr. Isaac Brunson v. Benedict College

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2252
DR. ISAAC BRUNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BENEDICT COLLEGE; DR. ROSLYN CLARK ARTIS; DR. JANEEN WITTY;
DR. KIMBERLY HAYNES-STEPHENS; MRS. MARTHA SMITH; GINA
MOORE; DR. NURIA ROJAS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (3:22-cv-03921-JDA)
Submitted: May 21, 2026 Decided: May 26, 2026
Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isaac Brunson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Kennedy Barlow, HALLIGAN MAHONEY &
WILLIAMS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dr. Isaac Brunson appeals from the district court’s judgment entered after the court
adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations to grant Defendants summary judgment
on Brunson’s discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and to
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brunson’s state law claims for breach of
contract, wrongful termination, and defamation. On appeal, we confine our review to the
issues raised in the informal brief. 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.”).
We have reviewed the record in conjunction with the issues Bruson raises on appeal
and find no reversible error. See, e.g., Fry v. Rand Constr. Corp., 964 F.3d 239, 248 (4th
Cir. 2020) (reiterating that “[i]t is the perception of the decision maker which is relevant”
in determining whether discipline is justified, “not the self-assessment of the plaintiff”
(internal quotation marks omitted)). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“[D]istrict courts
may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim . . . if . . . the district court
has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Brunson v. Benedict Coll.,
No. 3:22-cv-03921-JDA (D.S.C. Sep. 12, 2025). We dispense with oral argument because

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 --