Case Name: Stanley GARDNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond Edwin MABUS, Jr., Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-29
Citations: 608 F. App'x 156
Docket Number: No. 15-1214
Parties: Stanley GARDNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond Edwin MABUS, Jr., Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 156–157

Head Matter:
Stanley GARDNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond Edwin MABUS, Jr., Secretary of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-1214.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 25, 2015.
Decided: June 29, 2015.
Stanley Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Anthony Exley, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Wyne-va Johnson, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2012).

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
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 7961 (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.