Vang v. Weaver - Dismissal Affirmed as Modified
Summary
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina's dismissal of pro se plaintiff Pakuja Crystal Vang's civil action as frivolous and malicious, but modified the order to reflect dismissal without prejudice as to all claims except those against Valdese Weaver. The appellate court found that Vang forfeited appellate review because her informal brief did not challenge the district court's reasons for dismissal. Vang's motion to transfer the case to the Supreme Court was denied.
“Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal order, Vang v. Valdese Weaver, No. 1:24-cv-00159-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C. July 31, 2024), as modified to reflect dismissal without prejudice as to all claims except for those against Valdese Weaver”
About this source
GovPing monitors 4th Circuit Opinions for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 7 changes logged to date.
What changed
The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court dismissal but modified the order. The appellate court held that Vang forfeited appellate review because her informal brief failed to challenge the district court's stated reasons for dismissing her civil action. The court also modified the dismissal to reflect dismissal without prejudice as to all claims except those against Valdese Weaver, consistent with Fourth Circuit precedent requiring courts to give pro se plaintiffs opportunity to amend before dismissing with prejudice unless amendment would be futile.
Affected parties: pro se litigants filing appeals in the Fourth Circuit should be aware that failure to address the district court's specific reasons for dismissal in the informal brief forfeits appellate review. Additionally, courts dismissing pro se complaints should ordinarily do so without prejudice unless the court has given the plaintiff opportunity to amend or explained why amendment would be futile.
Archived snapshot
Apr 25, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 23, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Pakuja Vang v. Valdese Weaver
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 24-1815
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Combined Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1815 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/23/2026 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1815
PAKUJA CRYSTAL VANG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VALDESE WEAVER; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (government),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:24-cv-00159-MR-WCM)
Submitted: March 17, 2026 Decided: April 23, 2026
Before WYNN, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pakuja Crystal Vang, Appellant Pro Se. Sabrina Presnell Rockoff, MCGUIRE, WOOD &
BISSETTE, PA, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1815 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/23/2026 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Pakuja Crystal Vang appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice her
pro se civil action as frivolous and malicious. 1 On appeal, we confine our review to the
issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Vang’s informal brief
does not challenge the district court’s reasons for dismissing her civil action, she 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.”). And even if Vang had not forfeited
appellate review of that order, we would conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing Vang’s civil action. See Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252,
254-55 (4th Cir. 2004) (explaining standard of review for similar dismissal orders).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal order, Vang v. Valdese Weaver,
No. 1:24-cv-00159-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C. July 31, 2024), as modified to reflect dismissal
without prejudice as to all claims except for those against Valdese Weaver, see King v.
Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 225 (4th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that dismissal of pro se
complaint generally should be without prejudice if district court did not give plaintiff
opportunity to amend nor discuss why amendment would be futile). 2 We dispense with
1
Vang has filed a motion to transfer this case to the Supreme Court of the United
States. (ECF No. 13). We deny the motion.
2
The district court found that allowing Vang to amend her claims against Valdese
Weaver would be futile, but the court did not address the possibility of amendment as to
Vang’s remaining claims.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1815 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/23/2026 Pg: 3 of 3
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 AS MODIFIED
3
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for 4th Circuit Opinions
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from 4th Circuit.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when 4th Circuit Opinions publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.