Apr 30 2026
4th Cir. 25-6568 Per Curiam

RODNEY E. COBBS v. MARGARET A. HUTZENBILER; EMILY G. LANKLER, District Attorney's Office; CONNIE JORDAN, Assistant District Attorney; JEANNIE BERG; ARIKA SIDBURY; COURTNEY M. LAST

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a pro se civil rights lawsuit because the appellant failed to challenge the specific legal grounds for the lower court's ruling in his informal brief. By not preserving the necessary issues for review, the appellant forfeited his right to contest the dismissal on appeal.

Apr 30 2026
4th Cir. 25-6368 Per Curiam

Jones v. Frost

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Trevor Andrew Jones's civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim. The court declined to address the merits of the constitutional allegations, upholding the procedural dismissal while denying related motions to strike and appoint counsel.

Apr 30 2026
9th Cir. 3:25-cv-01594-SB Unpublished

ADEYINKA V. HENDRIE, ET AL.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Emmanuel Adeyinka's § 1983 false arrest and conspiracy claims because his complaint failed to allege sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim. The panel applied de novo review and found the plaintiff did not provide enough facts to support the necessary elements for Fourth Amendment violations or municipal liability.

Apr 30 2026
8th Cir. 25-2709 Panel Decision

Allen Pyron v. Johnston

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a pro se civil rights lawsuit brought by civilly committed individuals against Minnesota Sex Offender Program officials and JPay LLC. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that the district judge did not err in dismissing the case without referring it to a magistrate judge.

Apr 30 2026
5th Cir. 25-40395 Per Curiam

Joyce Hilts v. City of Port Arthur

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a former city employee's due process claims, ruling that her at-will employment status negated any protected property interest in her job. The court further held that her substantive due process claim was time-barred because the termination became final upon receipt of the notice, not after the internal appeal process concluded.

Apr 30 2026
5th Cir. 25-40215 Published

Shanter Norman Plaintiff— v. Beaumont Independent School District; Beaumont Independent School District Police Department; Shannon Allen, Doctor, Superintendent

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a former police officer's employment discrimination claims because his amended complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to support his theories of retaliation and hostile work environment. The court held that the officer could not rely on a declaration attached to his appellate response to cure factual deficiencies in his original pleading regarding the context of his social media post.

Apr 29 2026
11th Cir. 8:25-cv-00444-WFJ-SPF Per Curiam

Blair Clark v. David Bell

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Blair Clark's malicious prosecution claim because his complaint failed to identify a specific legal process that was constitutionally infirm. The court held that an officer's probable cause affidavit submitted to a prosecutor does not constitute the legal process required to sustain a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim.

Apr 29 2026
10th Cir. 1:23-CV-02540-LTB-SBP Panel Decision

Shores v. Williams, et al.

The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a prisoner's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims, holding that the lower court erred by failing to consider whether further amendment of the complaint would be futile. The appellate court remanded the case for the district court to determine if allowing the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint is necessary before final dismissal.

Apr 29 2026
4th Cir. 25-1318 Panel Decision

Brittany Ruffin v. Kevin Davis

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for a police officer who shot and killed a fleeing, unarmed teenager who made no threatening movements with a weapon. The court held that under clearly established law, an officer cannot use deadly force against a suspect who is armed but poses no immediate threat to safety.