Filed: Feb. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2173 MICHAEL A. SPIVEY, Plaintiff -Appellant, v. RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, d/b/a Triangle Transit, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:14-cv-00044-FL) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2173 MICHAEL A. SPIVEY, Plaintiff -Appellant, v. RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, d/b/a Triangle Transit, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:14-cv-00044-FL) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Ci..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2173 MICHAEL A. SPIVEY, Plaintiff -Appellant, v. RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, d/b/a Triangle Transit, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:14-cv-00044-FL) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: February 29, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Spivey, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Scott Joyner, Kimberly Joyce Lehmann, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael A. Spivey appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Spivey’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Spivey 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