WILSON v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, 11-1014. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20110523120
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 23, 2011
Latest Update: May 23, 2011
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Wilson appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment on his sexual harassment and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2010). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in Wilson's informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Wilson's informal brief do
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin Wilson appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment on his sexual harassment and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2010). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in Wilson's informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Wilson's informal brief doe..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Wilson appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment on his sexual harassment and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2010). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in Wilson's informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Wilson's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Wilson has forfeited appellate review of the district court's order. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (finding failure to raise issue in opening brief constituted abandonment of that issue). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. See Wilson v. Prince George's Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. 8:08-cv-02359-PJM (D. Md. Nov. 30, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Source: Leagle
