Whether a pro se plaintiff can challenge a jury verdict in a False Claims Act retaliation case without first moving for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59

No question identified. : 2). I recently experienced the unexpected death of a beloved family member, which has caused considerable emotional distress and necessitated my attention to various family matters. 3). The combination of these events has exacerbated my financial difficulties and led to personal health issues, significantly impacting my ability to prepare the petition within the original timeframe. These unforeseen circumstances constitute good cause for the requested extension. The additional time will allow me to address these personal matters and properly prepare the petition for this esteemed Court's consideration. As required, I have enclosed a copy of the Fouth Circuit Court's opinion and the order regarding rehearing. I sincerely appreciate your consideration of this request. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Respectfull ~ Todd White Z Enclosures: 1. Copy of lower court's opinion 2. Order regarding rehearing 2 THIS SECTION IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-2198 Doc: 38 Filed: 10/16/2024 Pg: 1 of 1 FILED: October 16, 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-2198 (1:20-cv-00173-GLR) TODD WHITE Plaintiff Appellant v. ACELL, INC. Defendant Appellee ORDER The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the full court. No judge requested a poll under Fed. R. App. P. 35. The court denies the petition for rehearing en banc. For the Court /s/ Nwamaka Anowi, Clerk USCA4 Appeal: 22-2198 Doc: 34 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 1o0f3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-2198 ; TODD WHITE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. ACELL, INC., Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, I, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cv-00173-GLR) Submitted: May 21, 2024 Decided: September 16, 2024 Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd White, Appellant Pro Se. Tonecia Resheia Brothers-Sutton, Donald Eugene English, Jr., Kathleen A. McGinley, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-2198 — Doc: 34 Filed: 09/16/2024 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Todd White appeals the entry of judgment in favor of ACell, Inc., following the district court’s grant of summary judgment and a jury verdict in ACell’s favor on White’s claims. Liberally construing White’s informal brief,! see Wall v. Rasnick, 42 F.4th 214, 218 (4th Cir. 2022), he argues that the district court abused its discretion in making certain evidentiary rulings; that he was prejudiced by the jury’s exposure to unadmitted evidence; that the jury’s verdict on his retaliation claim under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (FCA), is against the weight of the evidence; that he was prejudiced by certain statements ACell made in its closing argument; that the district court erred by excusing an ill juror during trial; and that the district court should have removed certain jurors who fell asleep during the trial. We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. The district court acted within its discretion as to the challenged evidentiary rulings and, to the extent the court erred by not giving a curative instruction regarding certain letters introduced at trial, any error was harmless. See Burgess v. Goldstein, 997 F.3d 541, 559, 56] (4th Cir. 2021) ' Following the completion of briefing, White moved to file an amended informal brief. We deny that motion. ? White has not properly raised any other issues for our consideration in this appeal. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (limiting our review to issues raised in informal brief); see also Grayson O Co. v. Agadir Int'l LLC, 856 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A party waives an argument by failing to present it in its opening brief or by failing to devel