Filed: Mar. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1042 HARRIET KAHN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ONE HOUSE AT A TIME, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-01408-CCB) Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harriet Kahn, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1042 HARRIET KAHN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ONE HOUSE AT A TIME, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-01408-CCB) Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harriet Kahn, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1042 HARRIET KAHN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ONE HOUSE AT A TIME, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-01408-CCB) Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harriet Kahn, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harriet Kahn appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Kahn’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Kahn has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court. 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
