Melinda Scott v. Joshua Moon, No. 19-1123 (4th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1123 MELINDA SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOSHUA MOON; BRIAN ZAIGER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00005-JPJ-PMS) Submitted: April 22, 2019 Decided: July 2, 2019 Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melinda L. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Melinda Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant’s brief must raise all the issues she wishes this court to review. Fed. R. App. P. 28. The failure to raise an issue results in its abandonment on appeal. See Hensley on behalf of N. Carolina v. Price, 876 F.3d 573, 580 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we will review only the issues that Scott has identified in her brief. On appeal, Scott asks us to review the district court’s holding that her complaint failed to demonstrate that Defendants Moon and Zaiger were information content providers, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 230, or that these Defendants encouraged illegal content about her to be posted on their websites. We agree with the district court that Scott’s complaint contained insufficient allegations that the Defendants provided illegal content about her or encouraged such content to be posted online. For the reasons explained by the district court, we affirm. 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.