Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01595/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01595-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-1595

JAMES ARTHUR SMITH,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ANTHEM, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (2:15-cv-00197-AWA-LRL)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Arthur Smith, Appellant Pro Se. David Edward Constine, 

III, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1595 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

James Arthur Smith appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment in favor of Anthem, Inc., on Smith’s 

discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12300 (2012). On appeal, we confine our 

review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Because Smith’s informal brief does not 

challenge the basis for the district court’s dispositive 

rulings, Smith 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); see also Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 

178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (failure to raise issue in 

opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue). 

Accordingly, we deny Smith’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. See Smith v. 

Anthem, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00197-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va. May 20, 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: 16-1595 Doc: 20 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 2