RUDOLPH v. HR SPECIALIST, 14-1797. (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20150114205
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2015
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Yvett C. Rudolph appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil action for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in Rudolph's informal brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549 , 556 & n.11 (4th Cir. 2008) (deeming claim raised for first time in reply brief abandoned). Insofar as Rudolph challenges the order transferrin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Yvett C. Rudolph appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil action for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in Rudolph's informal brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549 , 556 & n.11 (4th Cir. 2008) (deeming claim raised for first time in reply brief abandoned). Insofar as Rudolph challenges the order transferring..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Yvett C. Rudolph appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil action for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in Rudolph's informal brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 556 & n.11 (4th Cir. 2008) (deeming claim raised for first time in reply brief abandoned). Insofar as Rudolph challenges the order transferring her case from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, we lack jurisdiction to review this order. Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1257 (4th Cir. 1991). We have reviewed the record in light of Rudolph's remaining claims and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Rudolph v. HR Specialist, No. 1:14-cv-00477-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. June 23, 2014). 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.
Source: Leagle
