Filed: May 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1300 CAROLYN E. REED-SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SPARTANBURG COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SEVEN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (7:11-cv-00970-JMC) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1300 CAROLYN E. REED-SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SPARTANBURG COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SEVEN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (7:11-cv-00970-JMC) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1300 CAROLYN E. REED-SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SPARTANBURG COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT SEVEN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (7:11-cv-00970-JMC) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carolyn E. Reed-Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Carlos C. Johnson, Kenneth William Nettles, Jr., LYLES DARR & CLARK, LLP, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carolyn E. Reed-Smith appeals the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Reed-Smith’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Reed-Smith 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