Filed: Aug. 29, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1490 JANINE M. ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. US AIRWAYS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:10-cv-01658-RMG) Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janine M. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel E. Fa
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1490 JANINE M. ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. US AIRWAYS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:10-cv-01658-RMG) Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janine M. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel E. Far..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1490 JANINE M. ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. US AIRWAYS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:10-cv-01658-RMG) Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janine M. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel E. Farrington, FARRINGTON LAW FIRM, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Janine M. Adams appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant the motion to dismiss. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Adams’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Adams 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
