Wilson Ochar v. Apple Federal Credit Union

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2203 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/04/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2203

WILSON OCHAR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

APPLE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:24-cv-00757-CMH-WBP)

Submitted: February 27, 2026 Decided: March 4, 2026

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilson Ochar, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Joseph Smith, BERENZWEIG LEONARD, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2203 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/04/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Wilson Ochar appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action and

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to amend the judgment. * On appeal, we confine

our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ochar’s

informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s dispositions, he has

forfeited appellate review of the court’s orders. 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.”).

Ochar also appeals the district court’s imposition of a prefiling injunction. We have

reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion. See Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am.,

Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004) (providing standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders and the prefiling injunction. 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

* Ochar moves to consolidate his multiple appeals, to expedite decision, and to recuse the district judge and the magistrate judge. We deny these motions.