Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01214/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01214-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-1214

STANLEY GARDNER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RAYMOND EDWIN MABUS, JR., Secretary of the Navy,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District 

Judge. (2:14-cv-00352-AWA-TEM)

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 29, 2015

Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges.*

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Anthony Exley, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Wyneva Johnson, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

 * The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2012).

Appeal: 15-1214 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/29/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

Stanley Gardner appeals the district court’s order granting 

Defendant’s summary judgment motion on Gardner’s employment 

discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e–17 (2012), the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 796l 

(West 2008 & Supp. 2014), and the Age Discrimination in Employment 

Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2012). On 

appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the 

Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gardner’s 

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district 

court’s disposition, Gardner has forfeited appellate review of the 

court’s order. Accordingly, although we grant Gardner’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis, 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: 15-1214 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/29/2015 Pg: 2 of 2