Filed: Aug. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1531 BEVERLY DIGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ELAINE C. DUKE, Acting Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-02378-PJM) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1531 BEVERLY DIGGS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ELAINE C. DUKE, Acting Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-02378-PJM) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1531
BEVERLY DIGGS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ELAINE C. DUKE, Acting Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:15-cv-02378-PJM)
Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Beverly Diggs, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca Ann Koch, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Beverly Diggs appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment
discrimination complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Diggs’s informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Diggs has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,
370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th
Cir. 2004). 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