History
  • No items yet
midpage
Starsha Sewell, M.Ed. v. Westat
689 F. App'x 211
| 4th Cir. | 2017
|
Check Treatment
|
Docket

*1 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

2

Case Details

Case Name: Starsha Sewell, M.Ed. v. Westat
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date Published: May 17, 2017
Citation: 689 F. App'x 211
Docket Number: 17-1105
Court Abbreviation: 4th Cir.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.