Eshawn K. Scipio, a/k/a Eshawn Jessica Scipio v. the United States Department of the Treasury

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-1109
ESHAWN K. SCIPIO, a/k/a Eshawn Jessica Scipio,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; SCOTT
BESSENT, Secretary of the Treasury, in his individual and official capacity; THE
UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; DANNY WERFEL,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, in his individual and official capacity;
THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; PAT BROWNE,
Secretary of Revenue, in his official and individual capacity; DREW SVITKO,
Executive Director, in his individual and official capacity, PENNSYLVANIA
STATE LOTTERY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:25-cv-05133-JD)
Submitted: May 21, 2026 Decided: May 27, 2026
Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eshawn Jessica Scipio, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eshawn Jessica Scipio appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice her civil
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The magistrate judge thoroughly and
liberally reviewed Scipio’s complaint and identified any possible causes of action that her
allegations could establish before determining that her claims were barred for various
reasons, primarily including principles of sovereign immunity. The district court reviewed
Scipio’s objections to this recommendation before overruling them and adopting the
magistrate judge’s findings. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order accepting this recommendation. Scipio v.
U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 4:25-cv-05133-JD (D.S.C. Jan. 7, 2026). 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 --