Stanley Gardner v. Raymond Mabus , 608 F. App'x 156 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-1214
    STANLEY GARDNER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    RAYMOND EDWIN MABUS, JR., Secretary of the Navy,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District
    Judge. (2:14-cv-00352-AWA-TEM)
    Submitted:   June 25, 2015                    Decided:   June 29, 2015
    Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges. *
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Stanley Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Anthony Exley, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Wyneva Johnson, UNITED
    STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    * The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to
    
    28 U.S.C. § 46
    (d) (2012).
    Stanley Gardner appeals the district court’s order granting
    Defendant’s     summary   judgment    motion      on    Gardner’s     employment
    discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
    Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e–17 (2012), the
    Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 
    29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701
     to 796l
    (West 2008 & Supp. 2014), and the Age Discrimination in Employment
    Act of 1967, as amended, 
    29 U.S.C. §§ 621
     to 634 (2012).                       On
    appeal,   we    confine   our    review    to   the    issues   raised    in   the
    Appellant’s brief.        See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).              Because Gardner’s
    informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
    court’s disposition, Gardner has forfeited appellate review of the
    court’s order.     Accordingly, although we grant Gardner’s motion to
    proceed in forma pauperis, 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-1214

Citation Numbers: 608 F. App'x 156

Filed Date: 6/29/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023