Filed: Feb. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2429 SUSAN NEAL MATOUSEK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PLANET FITNESS; MR. GRIFFIN; MS. CHROMEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00597-RAJ-LRL) Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019 Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2429 SUSAN NEAL MATOUSEK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PLANET FITNESS; MR. GRIFFIN; MS. CHROMEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00597-RAJ-LRL) Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019 Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2429
SUSAN NEAL MATOUSEK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PLANET FITNESS; MR. GRIFFIN; MS. CHROMEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00597-RAJ-LRL)
Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019
Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Susan Neal Matousek, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Susan Neal Matousek appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action
for improper venue and declining to transfer it to another district. On appeal, we confine
our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Matousek’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s
dispositions, Matousek 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