Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01506/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01506-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-1506

JOSEPHAT MUA,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

THE O’NEAL LAW FIRM, LLP; THATCHER LAW FIRM; SULLIVAN, 

TALBOTT & BATT; BRYAN CHAPMAN; RMA & ASSOCIATES, LLC; 

ROBERT E. CAPPELL; HARDNETT & ASSOCIATES; BRADFORD 

ASSOCIATES; PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A.; MARYLAND STATE EDUCATION 

ASSOCIATION; ASSOCIATION OF SUPERVISORY & ADMINISTRATIVE 

SCHOOL; MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; C. SUKARI 

HARDNETT, LLC.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District 

Judge. (8:14-cv-02334-PJM)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Callyson Taylor Grove, Jodi V. 

Terranova, WILSON ELSER, Washington, D.C.; Robert Judah Baror, 

Lindsay A. Freedman, Linda Hitt Thatcher, THATCHER LAW FIRM, 

Greenbelt, Maryland; David George Mulquin, BRAULT & GRAHAM, LLC, 

Rockville, Maryland; Bryan Chapman, Washington, D.C.; Raouf 

Muhammad Abdullah, ABDULLAH & ASSOCIATES LLC, Upper Marlboro, 

Appeal: 16-1506 Doc: 54 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Maryland; Robert Elmer Cappell, ROBERT CAPPELL ATTORNEY AT LAW, 

Bowie, Maryland; Andrew G. Scott, Leslie Robert Stellman, PESSIN 

KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland; Christopher Mark Feldenzer, 

SEROTTE ROCKMAN & WESTCOTT, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Nathaniel 

David Johnson, LAW OFFICE OF NATHANIEL D. JOHNSON, Waldorf, 

Maryland; William H. Fields, OFFICE OF THE ATTONEY GENERAL, 

Baltimore, Maryland; Charlene Sukari Hardnett, Silver Spring,

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1506 Doc: 54 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Josephat Mua appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

his civil complaint against several Defendants. On appeal, we 

confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s 

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Mua’s informal briefs do 

not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, 

Mua has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s 

order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 

(4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, although we grant Mua’s motions

to exceed the length limitations for his informal brief, for 

leave to amend/correct his informal brief, and to supplement his 

amended brief, we affirm the district court’s order of 

dismissal. Mua v. The O’Neal Law Firm, LLP, No. 8:14-cv-02334-

PJM (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2016). 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: 16-1506 Doc: 54 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 3 of 3