Starsha Sewell, M.Ed. v. Westat

Fourth Circuit

Starsha Sewell, M.Ed. v. Westat

689 F. App'x 211

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 17, 2017

Docket17-1105

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 689 F. App'x 211 (Starsha Sewell, M.Ed. v. Westat) 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

Starsha Sewell, M.Ed. v. Westat, 689 F. App'x 211 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s orders denying relief in this action alleging employment discrimination and denying several postjudgment motions. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sewell’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Sewell 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 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s orders denying relief in this action alleging employment discrimination and denying several postjudgment motions. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sewell’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Sewell 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 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

689 F. App'x 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starsha-sewell-med-v-westat-ca4-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack