Andy Ralston v. Harold W. Clarke, former Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6715
ANDY RALSTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, former Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections;
M. DAVIS, Warden, Coffeewood Correctional Center; E. D. SALES, Unit Manager,
Coffeewood Correctional Center; K. SOUTTER, ADA and PREA Coordinator,
Coffeewood Correctional Center; T. BUTLER, Internal Affairs, Coffeewood
Correctional Center; B. LANHAM, Internal Affairs, Coffeewood Correctional
Center; PAUL HAYMES, Special Investigator Unit for the Virginia Department of
Corrections; ROSE DURBIN, PREA Manager, Virginia Department of Corrections;
MRS. RUIZ, Grievance Coordinator, Coffeewood Correctional Center; LADUKE,
Hearing Officer, Coffeewood Correctional Center; BROWN, Hearing Officer,
Coffeewood Correctional Center; MATTICE, Counselor, Coffeewood Correctional
Center; WOLD, Counselor, Coffeewood Correctional Center; MS. HILL,
Institutional Operations Manager, Coffeewood Correctional Center; LIEUTENANT
WILLIAMS, Coffeewood Correctional Center,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:23-cv-00716-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: February 26, 2026 Decided: March 3, 2026
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andy Lewis Ralston, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Andy Lewis Ralston, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in
the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). We discern no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s denial of Ralston’s motion for appointment or its decision to delay discovery rulings
pending a decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because Ralston’s informal brief
does not otherwise challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited
appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir.
2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fouth Circuit rules, our review
is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order. Ralson v. Clarke, No. 7:23-cv-00716-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va. Aug. 4, 2025). 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 --