Filed: Apr. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1230 RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CONTINUUM LEGAL; CACI, INC.; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01424-JCC-MSN) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1230 RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CONTINUUM LEGAL; CACI, INC.; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01424-JCC-MSN) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1230
RONALD SATISH EMRIT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CONTINUUM LEGAL; CACI, INC.; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01424-JCC-MSN)
Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se. Charles R. Claxton, PALEY, ROTHMAN,
GOLDSTEIN, ROSENBERG & COOPER, CHARTERED, Bethesda, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action
for failure to state a claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Emrit’s informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Emrit has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s order. * See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,
370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th
Cir. 2004). 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
*
Even assuming, without deciding, that the issues Emrit articulates in his notice of
appeal are properly before us, we find no reversible error in the district court’s dispositive
ruling on those bases.
2