Russell Morton, Jr. v. DAVID STEINER, USPS Postmaster General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2178
RUSSELL MORTON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID STEINER, USPS Postmaster General,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:23-cv-00618-RCY)
Submitted: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell Morton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Russell Morton, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion
to dismiss Morton’s claims brought pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act,
5 U.S.C. §§ 8101 to 8193, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
§§ 701 to 796l.* 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 arguments Morton raises on
appeal and find no reversible error. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)
(holding that, to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s allegations must “state[] a
plausible claim for relief” that “permit[s] the court to infer more than the mere possibility
of misconduct” based upon “its judicial experience and common sense”); Moore v. Frazier,
941 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2019) (reiterating that this court may affirm a district court’s
order “on any ground apparent on the record”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. Morton v. Steiner, No. 3:23-cv-00618-RCY (E.D. Va. Sep. 30, 2025). We dispense
* Morton has filed a motion for leave to file supplemental information, two
supplemental motions for leave to file supplemental information, and a motion for leave to
file omitted exhibits. We grant Morton’s motion for leave to file supplemental information
but deny the remaining motions. Cf. Cox v. SNAP, Inc., 859 F.3d 304, 306 n.1 (4th Cir.
2017) (recognizing that “[i]ssues raised for the first time on appeal are generally not
considered by this Court” (citation modified)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 --