Daniel Potts, Jr. v. Marley Engineered Products

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 25-1508
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1508 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1508

DANIEL THAD POTTS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARLEY ENGINEERED PRODUCTS; SPX TECHNOLOGIES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (4:23-cv-04875-SAL)

Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 2, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Thad Potts, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sarah M. Gable, OGLETREE DEAKINS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1508 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Thad Potts, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Potts’s amended

complaint alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-

12213. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See

4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because the informal brief does not challenge the district court’s

equitable-tolling ruling, Potts has forfeited appellate review of that issue. 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.”). And

we decline to consider the arguments regarding the timeliness of the complaint, which Potts

presents for the first time in his informal brief. See Tarashuk v. Givens, 53 F.4th 154, 167

(4th Cir. 2022) (“It is well established that this court does not consider issues raised for the

first time on appeal, absent exceptional circumstances.” (internal quotation marks

omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Potts v. Marley Engineered

Prods., No. 4:23-cv-04875-SAL (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 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