Case ID: f-appx_581/html/0192-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nedra CARR-STEPHENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, INC., OfficeMax Store # 562, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-2430.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 21, 2014.
    Decided: Aug. 5, 2014.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:13-ev-00075-RAJ-TEM).
    Nedra Carr-Stephenson, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan K. Meals, Davey & Brogan, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    
      Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
    Panel rehearing granted, en banc rehearing denied, and affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

Nedra Carr-Stephenson appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss her civil complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Carr-Stephenson does not challenge in her informal brief the basis for the district court’s disposition, she has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Id. 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.

PANEL REHEARING GRANTED; EN BANC REHEARING DENIED; AFFIRMED. 
      
       In an opinion issued on March 31, 2014, we dismissed Carr-Stephenson's appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that her notice of appeal was untimely filed. Carr-Stephenson then filed a petition for en banc rehearing that persuades us she timely filed a notice of appeal that did not appeár in the electronic record. Accordingly, although we deny Carr-Stephenson’s petition for rehearing en banc, we grant panel rehearing, and conclude that Carr-Stephenson did in fact file a timely notice of appeal. Accordingly, we vacate the prior opinion and issue this opinion in its stead.