Harry Gingold, proceeding pro se, appealed a district court order from the Northern District of West Virginia. The district court had adopted in part and rejected in part a magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the defendants' motion to dismiss Gingold's claims arising from events during his employment at West Virginia University. The defendants included the University Board of Governors, the University President, the Provost, and various college deans. In addition to the motion to dismiss, the district court denied Gingold's combined motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment and his motion seeking leave to amend his amended complaint. Gingold appealed, raising arguments in an informal brief regarding the lower court's rulings.
The Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished per curiam opinion affirming the district court. The court noted that under Fourth Circuit Rule 34(b), its review is confined to the issues raised in the appellant's informal brief. The court reviewed the record and the arguments Gingold presented in that brief. After this review, the court found no reversible error in the district court's decision to dismiss the claims and deny the post-judgment motions. The court determined that the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before it, making oral argument unnecessary.
The district court's dismissal of Gingold's employment claims stands, and he is barred from altering the judgment or amending his complaint under the current record. The decision reinforces the strict procedural limits on pro se appeals in the Fourth Circuit, where the scope of review is restricted to issues explicitly preserved in the informal brief. The case is closed at the appellate level with no remand instructions.