Charles Bailey v. Warfield & Rohr
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.
Opinion
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
687 F. App'x 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-bailey-v-warfield-rohr-ca4-2017.