Andy Ralston v. Harold Clarke

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 25-6715
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6715 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6715 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andy Lewis Ralston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6715 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/03/2026 Pg: 3 of 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