PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit v. Maria Cherniavska, of Warsaw, Poland (Future First Lady of United States by 2028 in…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-1151
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit;
PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE/POLITICAL ACTION
COMMITTEE/SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (SSF) NUMBER C00569897,
d/b/a United Emrits of America,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
MARIA CHERNIAVSKA, of Warsaw, Poland (Future First Lady of United States
by 2028 in a Parallel Universe); VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, President of
Ukraine; ALEXEI NAVALNY, Estate of; DARYA IGNATEVA, of Kyiv, Ukraine;
KATERYNA OLOKOBA, of Kherson, Ukraine; ERIN BURNETT, Outfront of
Cable News Network (CNN); INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE OF
HAGUE, Netherlands; UNITED NATIONS, UN; WORLD BANK;
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, IMF; COUNCIL ON FOREIGN
RELATIONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:26-cv-00015-MR-WCM)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit (who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number
P60005535) appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil complaint as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and imposing a prefiling review requirement on any
future filings. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district
court’s frivolity determination, as Emrit’s complaint failed to present a coherent claim for
relief. Furthermore, Emrit’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s
imposition of the prefiling review limitation. He has therefore forfeited appellate review
of that ruling. 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 affirm the district court’s orders. Presidential Candidate No.
P60005535 v. Cherniavska, No. 1:26-cv-00015-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2026; Feb.
9, 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

-- 3 of 3 --