Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Willette Wilkins v. Jeh Johnson, 14-2203 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-2203 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jan. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2203 WILLETTE WILKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JEH JOHNSON, Secretary Department of Homeland Security; TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Agency, Defendants - Appellees, and JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary Department of Homeland Security; STEVE TAPPER, TSAs Lawyer, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:13-c
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2203 WILLETTE WILKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JEH JOHNSON, Secretary Department of Homeland Security; TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Agency, Defendants - Appellees, and JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary Department of Homeland Security; STEVE TAPPER, TSAs Lawyer, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:13-cv-02965-SB) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willette Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Willette Wilkins appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing her complaint alleging disability discrimination for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Wilkins’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Wilkins has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we deny Wilkins’ motion to schedule oral argument and 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 3
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