Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02205/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02205-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2205

DR. THOMAS V. MONTGOMERY, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. MARK T. ESPER,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01317-CMH-IDD)

Submitted: April 14, 2020 Decided: April 17, 2020

Before WILKINSON, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas V. Montgomery, III, Appellant Pro Se. John Earl Swords, Special Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2205 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/17/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

In this employment discrimination case, Thomas V. Montgomery, III, appeals the 

district court’s orders dismissing one of his claims and granting summary judgment to 

Defendant on Montgomery’s other causes of action. Based on our review of the record, 

we agree with the district court’s determination that Montgomery failed to establish a prima 

facie case of race discrimination. As to the remaining claims, Montgomery has forfeited 

appellate review because his informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district 

court’s disposition of these claims. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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 deny Montgomery’s 

motion for relief. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2205 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/17/2020 Pg: 2 of 2