Filed: Jun. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1121 WILLIAM T. HUNTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; WASHINGTON HEADQUARTER SERVICES; PENTAGON FORCE PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01250-AJT-IDD) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Seni
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1121 WILLIAM T. HUNTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; WASHINGTON HEADQUARTER SERVICES; PENTAGON FORCE PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01250-AJT-IDD) Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-1121
WILLIAM T. HUNTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; WASHINGTON HEADQUARTER
SERVICES; PENTAGON FORCE PROTECTION AGENCY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01250-AJT-IDD)
Submitted: June 21, 2018 Decided: June 25, 2018
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William T. Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William T. Hunter appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion
to dismiss his complaint alleging several claims, including claims for employment
discrimination, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as claims
under the United States Constitution. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hunter’s informal brief
does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Hunter has forfeited
appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey,
775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th
Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our
review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). 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