Jay Folse v. John McCuskey, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2401

JAY FOLSE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN MCCUSKEY, JR., in his individual and official capacities; G. RUSSELL
ROLLYSON, JR., in his individual and official capacities; WALLACE LOONEY,
in his individual and official capacities; LISA HOPKINS, in her individual and
official capacities; STEPHEN CONNOLLY, in his individual and official capacities;
MICHAEL NUSBAUM, in his individual and official capacities; KEVIN
FOREMAN, in his individual and official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:22-cv -00171)

Submitted: July 23, 2026 Decided: July 27, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jay Folse, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Wyatt Castillo, CIPRIANI & WERNER PC,
Charleston, West Virginia; Christopher Thomas Ferro, PULLIN, FOWLER,
FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee Wallace

2

Looney.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

3

PER CURIAM:
Jay Folse appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to grant Defendants summary judgment in Folse’s civil action. On
appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R.
34(b); see also 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.”). We have reviewed the district court’s order in conjunction with
the arguments Folse raises in his informal brief and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s judgment. Folse v. McCuskey, No. 2:22-cv-00171 (S.D. W.
Va. Oct. 22, 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