Filed: May 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1246 BRIDGET M. LONG, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LIBERTYWOOD NURSING CENTER; WILLIAM SCHUTZ; DEBBIE DRAUGHN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00315-WO-LPA) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1246 BRIDGET M. LONG, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LIBERTYWOOD NURSING CENTER; WILLIAM SCHUTZ; DEBBIE DRAUGHN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00315-WO-LPA) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1246
BRIDGET M. LONG,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
LIBERTYWOOD NURSING CENTER; WILLIAM SCHUTZ; DEBBIE DRAUGHN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00315-WO-LPA)
Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bridget M. Long, Appellant Pro Se. James Rupert Nance, Jr.,
LEWIS, DEESE, NANCE & BRIGGS, LLP, Fayetteville, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bridget M. Long appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). On appeal, we
confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Long’s informal brief
does not challenge the basis for the district court’s
disposition, Long 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2