Filed: Nov. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2019
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2053 THEODORE BRYANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01183-ELH) Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019 Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed b
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2053 THEODORE BRYANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01183-ELH) Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019 Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-2053
THEODORE BRYANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01183-ELH)
Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019
Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Bryant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his employment
discrimination complaint in part and granting summary judgment to Appellee on the
remainder of the action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bryant’s informal brief does not
challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, Bryant 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