Ochar v. Apple Federal Credit Union - Civil Action Dismissal

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed March 4th, 2026

Detected March 5th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of Wilson Ochar's civil action against Apple Federal Credit Union and denied his motion to amend the judgment. The court also affirmed the imposition of a prefiling injunction against Ochar.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the district court's dismissal of Wilson Ochar's civil action against Apple Federal Credit Union. The appellate court also upheld the denial of Ochar's Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment and affirmed the district court's imposition of a prefiling injunction. The decision was based on Ochar's failure to challenge the grounds for the district court's dispositions in his informal brief, thereby forfeiting appellate review of those orders.

This ruling means that Ochar's civil action remains dismissed, and the prefiling injunction against him is in effect. For legal professionals and courts, this case reinforces the importance of properly preserving issues for appeal in informal briefs under Fourth Circuit rules and highlights the court's discretion in imposing prefiling injunctions to prevent frivolous litigation. There are no immediate compliance actions required for regulated entities, as this is an individual case outcome.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24 - 2203 WILSON OCHAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. APPLE FEDER AL CREDIT UNION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United S tates 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, 202 6 Decided: March 4, 2026 Before KING and WYNN, C ircuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wilson Oc har, Appe llant Pr o Se. A ndrew Jos eph Smit h, BERENZW EIG LEO NARD, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Wilson Ochar appeals the district court’s order s dismissing his civil actio n 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 bas e s for the district court’s disposition s, he has forfeited appellate review o f the court’s order s. 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 p refiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and d iscern no abuse of discretion. S ee Crom er v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 8 12, 817 (4t h Cir. 200 4) (providing standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the d istrict court’s orders and the p refiling injunction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials befo re this court and argument wou ld 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 th ese motions.