Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Terrida Monroe v. Victoria Fire & Casualty, 18-1892 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-1892 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jan. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1892 TERRIDA MONROE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VICTORIA FIRE & CASUALTY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cv-00425-JAG) Submitted: November 19, 2018 Decided: January 8, 2019 Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrida
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-1892


TERRIDA MONROE,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

VICTORIA FIRE & CASUALTY,

                    Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cv-00425-JAG)


Submitted: November 19, 2018                                      Decided: January 8, 2019


Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Terrida Monroe, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Terrida Monroe appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint.

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th

Cir. R. 34(b). Because Monroe’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the

district court’s disposition, Monroe has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order.

See Jackson v. Lightsey, 
775 F.3d 170
, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an

important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved

in that brief.”). 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 the 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