Marion Wade Frye v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6519
MARION WADE FRYE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DIRECTOR
BRYAN STERLING; KENNETH NELSON; RANDY WARD; FRANKLIN
MILLER; CONTRABAND CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DEGROFF;
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MADDOX; SHOLANDA JACKSON; MENTAL
HEALTH OFFICER HUGHES, Governor; QUALIFIED MENTAL HEALTH
PERSONNEL THOMAS; QUALIFIED MENTAL HEALTH PERSONNEL
FOUTY; QUALIFIED MENTAL HEALTH PERSONNEL TOLSEN; BRUCE
LOBITZ; VIOLA THORTON; NURSE MASSEY; NURSE HARRIS; SOUTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR LICENSING AND REGULATION;
BOARD EXECUTIVE JESSICA BEISE; PRISMA HEALTH, Hospital; IMAGE
CARE, LLC; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Department of Mental Health/Behavior Health Services; SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Department of Medical Services Office;
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director of the
Department of Medical Services; OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL; PRISMA
HEALTH, Hospital Sergeon, Servants, License Physicians, and Employees John
Does 1 - 5; IMAGE CARE, LLC, Radiologist, License Physicians, Employees,
Servants, John Does 1 - 5,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Orangeburg. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (5:24-cv-01893-JD)
Submitted: November 25, 2025 Decided: December 2, 2025

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marion Wade Frye, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Marion Wade Frye appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and dismissing Frye’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and denying Frye’s
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Frye’s informal brief does not challenge the
basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s
orders. 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 deny Frye’s motion for injunctive relief and
affirm the district court’s orders. 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 --