Case Name: Connell DONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-19
Citations: 673 F. App'x 333
Docket Number: No. 16-2063
Parties: Connell DONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 673
Pages: 333–333

Head Matter:
Connell DONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Megan J. BRENNAN, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-2063
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 17, 2017
Decided: January 19, 2017
Connell Dones, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra DeShields Minnis, Office of the. United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (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