LAW.coLAW.co

Josephat MUA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY/Prince Georges County Public Schools; Verjeana M. Jacobs, Individually and as Board Chairperson of Prince Georges Public Schools; Dr. William R. Hite, Jr., Individually and as superintendent; Roger C. Thomas, Esquire; Synthia J. Shilling; Monica Goldson, Individually and as Associates superintendent of Prince Georges Public Schools; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME; Association of Classified Employees American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFSCME Local 2250; Pierre Dickson, Individually and as agent of the Board of Education of Prince Georges County; DR Kevin Maxwell, Individually and as superintendent of Prince Georges Public Schools; Dr. Alvin L. Crawley, Individually and as superintendent; Robert J. Gaskin, Individually and Chief Human Resources of Prince Georges Public Schools; Dr. Lillian M. Lowery; Ardia ONeal; Abbey Hairston, Defendants-Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit2016-09-16No. No. 16-1509
668 F. App'x 535

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Josephat Mua appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint raising several civil claims against Defendants. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Mua’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, Mua has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny Mua’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s order of dismissal. See Mua v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cty., No. 8:15-cv-02249-PJM, 2016 WL 1258469 (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2016). 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