Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cheryl Jones v. Sandra Gregory, 17-1617 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-1617 Visitors: 24
Filed: Aug. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1617 CHERYL JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SANDRA GREGORY; MECKLENBURG DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-00280-JAG) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 17-1617


CHERYL JONES,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

SANDRA GREGORY;             MECKLENBURG           DEPARTMENT           OF   SOCIAL
SERVICES,

                    Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-00280-JAG)


Submitted: August 24, 2017                                        Decided: August 28, 2017


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Cheryl Jones, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Cheryl Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint as barred

by the statute of limitations. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the

Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Jones’s informal brief does not challenge

the basis for the district court’s disposition, Jones 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




                                             2

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