Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Alice Deane v. Marshalls, Inc., 12-2577 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-2577 Visitors: 70
Filed: Apr. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2577 ALICE M. DEANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARSHALLS, INC.; AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING, PA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (5:11-cv-00135-MFU-BWC) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2577 ALICE M. DEANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARSHALLS, INC.; AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING, PA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (5:11-cv-00135-MFU-BWC) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alice M. Deane, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Philip Postol, SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Charles Garrison Meyer, III, LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alice M. Deane appeals the district court’s order adopting the report of the magistrate judge and dismissing her employment discrimination suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Deane does not challenge in her informal brief the basis for the district court’s disposition, she 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