Phillips v. Raytheon Applied Signal Technology, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Phillips v. Raytheon Applied Signal Technology, Inc.

556 F. App'x 265

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 25, 2014

DocketNo. 13-2243

StatusPublished

This text of 556 F. App'x 265 (Phillips v. Raytheon Applied Signal Technology, 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

Phillips v. Raytheon Applied Signal Technology, Inc., 556 F. App'x 265 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cynthia Phillips appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint alleging employment discrimination. On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Phillips’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Phillips has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Phillips v. Raytheon Applied Signal Tech., Inc., No. 1:11-cv-03230-ELH (D.Md. Sept. 27, 2013). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cynthia Phillips appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint alleging employment discrimination. On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Phillips’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Phillips has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Phillips v. Raytheon Applied Signal Tech., Inc., No. 1:11-cv-03230-ELH (D.Md. Sept. 27, 2013). 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)

556 F. App'x 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-raytheon-applied-signal-technology-inc-ca4-2014.