James Smith v. Anthem, Incorporated

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999841750-2] Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00197-AWA-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999914276]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-1595]

Appeal: 16-1595

Doc: 20

Filed: 08/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1595

JAMES ARTHUR SMITH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ANTHEM, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:15-cv-00197-AWA-LRL)

Submitted:

August 18, 2016

Decided:

August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Arthur Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
David Edward Constine,
III, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1595

Doc: 20

Filed: 08/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James

Arthur

Smith

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

granting summary judgment in favor of Anthem, Inc., on Smith’s
discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and the Americans with Disabilities
Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12300 (2012).

On appeal, we confine our

review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief.
Cir.

R.

34(b).

challenge

the

Because
basis

for

Smith’s
the

informal

district

brief

court’s

See 4th
does

not

dispositive

rulings, Smith 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); see also Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (failure to raise issue in
opening

brief

constitutes

abandonment

of

that

issue).

Accordingly, we deny Smith’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment.

See Smith v.

Anthem, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00197-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va. May 20, 2016).
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2