Filed: Jan. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2217 JACQUELINE ANNE YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIDLAKE, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00222-MSD-RJK) Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016 Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacqueline Anne Young, Appellant Pro Se. A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2217 JACQUELINE ANNE YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIDLAKE, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00222-MSD-RJK) Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016 Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacqueline Anne Young, Appellant Pro Se. Al..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2217 JACQUELINE ANNE YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DIDLAKE, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00222-MSD-RJK) Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016 Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacqueline Anne Young, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Steven Shachter, Manassas, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jacqueline Anne Young appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Young’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Young 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
