William David Jones v. JOHN C. PHELAN, Secretary of the Navy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1066
WILLIAM DAVID JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN C. PHELAN, Secretary of the Navy,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00514-DJN)
Submitted: August 25, 2025 Decided: December 10, 2025
Before WILKINSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William David Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United
States Attorney, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
William David Jones appeals the district court’s order awarding partial summary
judgment to the Secretary of the Navy, affirming the final decision of the Merit Systems
Protection Board, and dismissing without prejudice Jones’s retaliation claim under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17.* Limiting our review
of the record to the issues raised in Jones’s informal brief, we discern no reversible error.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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 Jones’s motion to introduce new evidence
and for a hearing (ECF No. 10), and his motion for a default judgment (ECF No. 11), and
we affirm the district court’s order. Jones v. Del Toro, No. 3:23-cv-00514-DJN (E.D. Va.,
Dec. 22, 2023). 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
* Although Jones prematurely filed his notice of appeal, see Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th
790, 793 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc), we conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction under
the doctrine of cumulative finality, see Houck v. LifeStore Bank, 41 F.4th 266, 271 (4th
Cir. 2022).

-- 2 of 2 --