David Babb v. David Isom

── David Babb v. David Isom ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 24-1916 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/16/2026 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1916 DAVID ANTHONY BABB, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAVID ISOM; RUDY SOCHA, CEO, Wounded Nature Working Veterans; JOHN J. TECKLENBURG, Retired; MIKE MERRILL, City Police Officer; S.C. ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON, Attorney General for SC; WOUNDED NATURE- WORKING VETERANS 501 C(3), Registered Agent: Rudy Socha; SARAH REED, DHEC Agent, South Carolina Coastal Management Council, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:23-cv-03218-RMG) Submitted: April 1, 2026 Decided: April 16, 2026 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Anthony Babb, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1916 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/16/2026 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: David Anthony Babb appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Babb’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court’s order denying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and the district court’s denial of Babb’s motions for appointment of counsel.1 Finding no reversible error, we affirm.2 We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim, accepting as true all well pleaded allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 248 (4th Cir. 2017). To withstand dismissal, “[a] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Kashdan v. George Mason Univ., 70 F.4th 694, 700 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). A claim is plausible if the plaintiff “provides sufficient detail . . . to show that he has a more-than-conceivable chance of success on the merits.” Owens v. Balt. City State’s Attys Off., 767 F.3d 379, 396 (4th Cir. 2014). In conducting this analysis, we need 1 Babb moves to include as part of the record on appeal various motions that he asserts the district court did not address. We deny the motion as moot. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)(1) (defining record on appeal to include “the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court”). 2 Babb asserts that we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of the district court’s judgment under Porter v. Zook, 803 F.3d 694 (4th Cir. 2015), because the district court failed to rule on all relevant claims and motions. To the contrary, we conclude that the district court’s orders are final and appealable. See Hixson v. Moran, 1 F.4th 297, 301 (4th Cir. 2021). 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1916 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/16/2026 Pg: 3 of 5 not accept as true “allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Martin, 858 F.3d at 248 (internal quotation marks omitted). On appeal, we confine our review to the arguments raised in the informal brief. See 4th