Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Wes Moore

── Presidential Candidate Number P60005535 v. Wes Moore ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-2371 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/27/2026 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-2371 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE NUMBER P60005535, a/k/a Ronald Satish Emrit; PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE/POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE/SEPARATE SEGREGATED FUND (SSF) NUMBER C00569897, d/b/a United Emrits of America, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. GOVERNOR WES MOORE, D- Maryland; AISHA BRAVEBOY, Prince George’s County Executive; CONGRESSMAN JAMIE RASKIN, D-Maryland; SENATOR ANGELA ALSOBROOKS, D-Maryland; SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, D- Maryland; ANTHONY BROWN, Maryland Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (3:25-cv-10430-DCC) Submitted: April 23, 2026 Decided: April 27, 2026 Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Presidential Candidate Number P60005535, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-2371 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/27/2026 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Ronald Satish Emrit (who also identifies himself as Presidential Candidate Number P60005535) appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil complaint for improper venue. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Emrit’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review 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 affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2