Josephat Mua v. Attorney General, Maryland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-02070-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999930681]. Mailed to: J Mua. [16-1503]

Appeal: 16-1503

Doc: 22

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1503

JOSEPHAT MUA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
THE MARYLAND OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; THE MARYLAND
STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,
MARYLAND; HON. NANCY K. KOPP, State Treasurer,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-02070-PJM)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided:

September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se.
William H. Fields, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; William
Antoine Snoddy, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Upper Marlboro,
Maryland; Elizabeth Lynn Adams, MARYLAND NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK &
PLANNING COMMISSION, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1503

Doc: 22

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Josephat Mua appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his civil complaint against several Defendants.
confine
brief.

our

review

to

the

issues

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

raised

in

On appeal, we
the

Appellant’s

Because Mua’s informal briefs do

not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition,
Mua

has

order.

forfeited

appellate

review

of

the

district

court’s

See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4

(4th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

order of dismissal.
02070-PJM

(D.

Md.

Mua v. Attorney Gen., Md., No. 8:14-cvMar.

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

2