Connell Dones v. Megan J. Brennan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:12-cv-03369-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000006306]. Mailed to: Connell Dones 10407 Terraco Drive Cheltenham, MD 20623-1203 Tarra DeShields Minnis. [16-2063]

Appeal: 16-2063

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2063

CONNELL DONES,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MEGAN J. BRENNAN,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cv-03369-DKC)

Submitted:

January 17, 2017

Decided:

January 19, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Connell Dones, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra DeShields Minnis, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2063

Doc: 11

Filed: 01/19/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Connell Dones appeals the verdict entered in favor of the
defendant

with

complaint.

respect

Giving

to

liberal

Dones’

employment

interpretation

to

discrimination
Dones’

informal

appellate brief, Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam),

he

does

not

contest

the

district

court’s

orders

granting in part defendant’s motion to dismiss and granting in
part defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
42(b).

See 4th Cir. R.

Instead, Dones only challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence supporting the jury’s verdict on one claim.

Because

Dones failed to file either a Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 or 59(a) motion
within 28 days of the judgment, any challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence is foreclosed.
U.S.,

679

F.3d

146,

154-60

See Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp.,
(4th

Cir.

2012)

(noting

that

postverdict motion challenging jury’s verdict as to sufficiency
of

evidence

is

Accordingly,

we

dispense

with

contentions

are

necessary
affirm
oral

to

the

district

argument

adequately

preserve

court’s

because

presented

issue

in

the
the

for

appeal).

judgment.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2