Massey v. CBRE, Inc. - Appeal Affirmation

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed February 26th, 2026

Detected February 27th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss Arthur Massey's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court found that the appellant forfeited appellate review by not challenging the basis of the district court's disposition in his informal brief. The court denied motions and affirmed the judgment.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing Arthur Massey's complaint without prejudice due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellate court's decision, rendered in an unpublished per curiam opinion, was based on the appellant's failure to raise specific challenges to the district court's disposition in his informal brief, thereby forfeiting appellate review of the order. The court also denied the appellant's motions to appoint counsel and dismiss a party.

This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to appellate court rules, particularly regarding the content of informal briefs in the Fourth Circuit. For legal professionals involved in appeals, this case highlights that failure to properly brief all grounds for appeal can lead to forfeiture of review. While this specific opinion is unpublished and thus not binding precedent, it serves as a reminder of procedural requirements in appellate litigation. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities, but legal counsel should be aware of the strict adherence to briefing rules.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH C IRCUIT No. 24-1919 ARTHUR MASSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CBRE, INC., CSHV L LC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the Unite d States District Court for the Western D istrict of North Carolin a, at Charlotte. Robert J. C onrad, Jr., District Judg e. (3:23- cv -00420- RJC- SCR) Submitted: February 1 8, 2026 Decided: February 26, 2026 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HEYT ENS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublish ed per curiam opini on. Arthur Massey, Appell ant Pro Se. Jos hua L. Rogers, Durham, North Carolina, Dougl as Aaron Winegardner, SANDS ANDERS ON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Arthur Massey appeals the district court’s ord er accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge a nd dismissing h is complaint without pr ejudice for lack of subj ect matter jurisdiction. On appeal, we confine ou r review to the issues raised in the inform al brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Be cause Massey ’ s informal brief does n ot challenge the basis for the district court’s dispositio n, he has forfeited appellate re view 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 his motions to appoint co unsel and dismiss party and affirm the dis trict c ourt’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre sented in the materi als before this court a nd argument would not ai d the decisional pro cess. AFFIRMED