M. Eugene Gibbs v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 13, 2026
• Docket: 25-1794
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1794 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/13/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1794

In re: BARBARA ALBYTINE GIBBS,

Debtor,

M. EUGENE GIBBS,

Appellant,

v.

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,

Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (4:24-cv-06573-MGL)

Submitted: December 22, 2025 Decided: January 13, 2026

Before GREGORY and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin Eugene Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy Cook Hodges, Matthew Douglas Patterson, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1794 Doc: 29 Filed: 01/13/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

M. Eugene Gibbs appeals the district court’s orders dismissing for lack of

jurisdiction his appeals from bankruptcy court orders and denying his motions to alter or

amend the judgment and for injunctive relief. In this court, Gibbs has filed an informal

opening brief, an informal reply brief, a motion to amend and supplement his informal

brief, and a reply to his motion to amend and supplement. We grant Gibbs’ motion to

amend and supplement his informal brief and have considered the arguments presented in

all of his filings.

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal briefs. See 4th

Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gibbs’ informal brief as amended and supplemented does not

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 Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited

to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny Gibbs’ motion for clarification,

and we affirm the district court’s orders. Gibbs v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No.

4:24-cv-06573-MGL (D.S.C. June 12, 2025; July 1, 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