Charles Bailey v. Warfield & Rohr

687 F. App'x 284
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 28, 2017
Docket17-1324
StatusUnpublished

This text of 687 F. App'x 284 (Charles Bailey v. Warfield & Rohr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charles Bailey v. Warfield & Rohr, 687 F. App'x 284 (4th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles Bailey appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 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 Bailey’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Bailey 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 *285 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Williams v. Giant Food Inc.
370 F.3d 423 (Fourth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
687 F. App'x 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-bailey-v-warfield-rohr-ca4-2017.