Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02063/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02063-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Connell Dones appeals the verdict entered in favor of the 

defendant with respect to Dones’ employment discrimination 

complaint. Giving liberal interpretation to 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. See 4th Cir. R. 

42(b). 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. See Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., 

U.S., 679 F.3d 146, 154-60 (4th Cir. 2012) (noting that 

postverdict motion challenging jury’s verdict as to sufficiency 

of evidence is necessary to preserve issue for appeal). 

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

Appeal: 16-2063 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/19/2017 Pg: 2 of 2