Thomas v. Sallie Mae Financial Corp.

Fourth Circuit

Thomas v. Sallie Mae Financial Corp.

558 F. App'x 314

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 4, 2014

DocketNo. 13-2267

StatusPublished

This text of 558 F. App'x 314 (Thomas v. Sallie Mae Financial Corp.) 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

Thomas v. Sallie Mae Financial Corp., 558 F. App'x 314 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jay L. Thomas appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint against Sallie Mae Financial Corporation, Inc., in which he alleged breach of contract and violations of the Rehabilitation Act and Consumer Fraud Act. On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Thomas’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Thomas 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jay L. Thomas appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his complaint against Sallie Mae Financial Corporation, Inc., in which he alleged breach of contract and violations of the Rehabilitation Act and Consumer Fraud Act. On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Thomas’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Thomas 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)

558 F. App'x 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-sallie-mae-financial-corp-ca4-2014.