Filed: Jul. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1456 JEFFREY M. MOOGALIAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00706-JAG-MHL) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey M. Moogalian, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1456 JEFFREY M. MOOGALIAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00706-JAG-MHL) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey M. Moogalian, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1456
JEFFREY M. MOOGALIAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00706-JAG-MHL)
Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey M. Moogalian, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy S. Lester,
Alexander Tevis Marshall, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART,
PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey M. Moogalian appeals the district court’s
dismissal of his action as barred by the six-month statute of
limitations imposed by the Labor Management Relations Act, 29
U.S.C. § 185 (2012). On appeal, we confine our review to the
issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Because Moogalian’s informal brief does not challenge the basis
for the district court’s disposition, Moogalian has forfeited
appellate review of the court’s order. 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2