Deane v. Marshalls, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Deane v. Marshalls, Inc.

518 F. App'x 237

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 22, 2013

DocketNo. 12-2577

StatusPublished

This text of 518 F. App'x 237 (Deane v. Marshalls, Inc.) 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

Deane v. Marshalls, Inc., 518 F. App'x 237 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

[238]*238Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alice M. Deane appeals the district court’s order adopting the report of the magistrate judge and dismissing her employment discrimination suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Deane does not challenge in her informal brief the basis for the district court’s disposition, she has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. 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.

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

[238]*238Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alice M. Deane appeals the district court’s order adopting the report of the magistrate judge and dismissing her employment discrimination suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Deane does not challenge in her informal brief the basis for the district court’s disposition, she has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 F. App'x 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deane-v-marshalls-inc-ca4-2013.