Starsha Sewell v. Strayer University

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:16-cv-00159-PWG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000295957]. Mailed to: Starsha Sewell. [18-1096]

Appeal: 18-1096

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/17/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1096

STARSHA M. SEWELL, M.Ed.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STRAYER UNIVERSITY; ROBERT SILBERMAN; KARL MCDONNELL,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:16-cv-00159-PWG)

Submitted: May 15, 2018

Decided: May 17, 2018

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. John Byron Flood, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH
SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-1096

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/17/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s order striking her motion for
reconsideration of her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and directing that the motion for
reconsideration be stricken from the district court’s docket. On appeal, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Sewell’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition,
Sewell has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775
F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under
Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).
Accordingly, 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