Case Name: Adrienne L. MCADORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VAIL TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-21
Citations: 695 F. App'x 730
Docket Number: No. 17-1605
Parties: Adrienne L. MCADORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VAIL TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 695
Pages: 730–730

Head Matter:
Adrienne L. MCADORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VAIL TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-1605
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 17, 2017
Decided: August 21, 2017
Adrienne L. McAdory, Appellant Pro Se. Brittney Renee McClain, Craig Benson Young, KUTAK ROCK, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adrienne L. McAdory appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Vail Technologies ("Vail") on McA-dory's pregnancy discrimination claim. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because McAdor/s informal brief does not challenge the district court's alternative holdings that she failed to establish her prima facie case or that Vail's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the subcontract was a pretext for discrimination, McAdory has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. See Brown v. Nucor Corp., 785 F.3d 895, 918 (4th Cir. 2015); Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). 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