Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Susan Matousek v. Planet Fitness, 18-2429 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-2429 Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2429 SUSAN NEAL MATOUSEK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PLANET FITNESS; MR. GRIFFIN; MS. CHROMEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00597-RAJ-LRL) Submitted: February 26, 2019 Decided: February 28, 2019 Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-2429


SUSAN NEAL MATOUSEK,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

PLANET FITNESS; MR. GRIFFIN; MS. CHROMEN,

                    Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00597-RAJ-LRL)


Submitted: February 26, 2019                                 Decided: February 28, 2019


Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Susan Neal Matousek, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Susan Neal Matousek appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action

for improper venue and declining to transfer it to another district. On appeal, we confine

our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because

Matousek’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s

dispositions, Matousek 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 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