Filed: Nov. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1432 MARESS BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICK MINICHBAUER, Human Resource Manager, K-Mart Distribution Center; MATT HENRY, Supervisor, K-Mart Distribution Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00474-JAB-JEP) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014 Before KI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1432 MARESS BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICK MINICHBAUER, Human Resource Manager, K-Mart Distribution Center; MATT HENRY, Supervisor, K-Mart Distribution Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00474-JAB-JEP) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014 Before KIN..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1432
MARESS BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RICK MINICHBAUER, Human Resource Manager, K-Mart
Distribution Center; MATT HENRY, Supervisor, K-Mart
Distribution Center,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00474-JAB-JEP)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maress Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Douglas Dellinger,
Molly Mitchell Shah, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maress Brown appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his Title VII employment discrimination action
because Brown did not (a) name a proper “employer,” as that term
is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) (2012); and (b)
administratively exhaust his claims as to the two named
Defendants. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Because Brown’s informal brief does not challenge either basis
for the district court’s disposition, Brown 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