Stanley Gardner v. Raymond Mabu

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999558125-2] Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00352-AWA-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999610722]. Mailed to: Gardner, Johnson. [15-1214]

Appeal: 15-1214

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

Appeal: 15-1214

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

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).
appeal,

we

confine

Appellant’s brief.

our

review

to

the

issues

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

raised

in

On
the

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