Case Name: Ronnie CLARKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PETERSBURG; W. Howard Myers, Mayor of the City of Petersburg; William Johnson, City Manager; Lorraine Adeeb, Human Resources Director for City; Brian Telfair, City Attorney for the City, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-28
Citations: 696 F. App'x 644
Docket Number: No. 17-1530
Parties: Ronnie CLARKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PETERSBURG; W. Howard Myers, Mayor of the City of Petersburg; William Johnson, City Manager; Lorraine Adeeb, Human Resources Director for City; Brian Telfair, City Attorney for the City, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 644–644

Head Matter:
Ronnie CLARKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PETERSBURG; W. Howard Myers, Mayor of the City of Petersburg; William Johnson, City Manager; Lorraine Adeeb, Human Resources Director for City; Brian Telfair, City Attorney for the City, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1530
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 24, 2017
Decided: August 28, 2017
Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2012).

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Clarke appeals the district court's order dismissing, after a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012), Clarke's complaint alleging Defendants retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R, 34(b). Because Clarke's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Clarke has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir, 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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