Cynthia Phillips v. Raytheon Applied Signal Tech

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-03230-ELH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999303089]. Mailed to: appellant. [13-2243]

Appeal: 13-2243

Doc: 11

Filed: 02/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2243

CYNTHIA PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RAYTHEON APPLIED SIGNAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-03230-ELH)

Submitted:

February 20, 2014

Decided:

February 25, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cynthia Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Frier Wiltsie, HUNTON
& WILLIAMS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2243

Doc: 11

Filed: 02/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Cynthia
dismissing

her

Phillips
complaint

appeals
alleging

the

district

employment

court’s

order

discrimination.

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Because Phillips’

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s disposition, Phillips has forfeited appellate review of
the court’s order.
judgment.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

Phillips v. Raytheon Applied Signal Tech., Inc., No.

1:11-cv-03230-ELH (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2013).
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2