Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Michael Hall v. Quest Management Group LLC, 12-2149 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-2149 Visitors: 13
Filed: Dec. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2149 MICHAEL HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. QUEST MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen Lipton Hollander, District Judge. (1:11-cv-02190-ELH) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2149 MICHAEL HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. QUEST MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen Lipton Hollander, District Judge. (1:11-cv-02190-ELH) Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 26, 2012 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Eileen Carr Riley, Larry Robert Seegull, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Hall appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his former employer and dismissing Hall’s action alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hall’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Hall 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer