Case Name: Starsha M. SEWELL, M.Ed., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STRAYER UNIVERSITY; Robert Silberman; Karl McDonnell, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-17
Citations: 689 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 17-1107
Parties: Starsha M. SEWELL, M.Ed., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STRAYER UNIVERSITY; Robert Silberman; Karl McDonnell, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 209–209

Head Matter:
Starsha M. SEWELL, M.Ed., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STRAYER UNIVERSITY; Robert Silberman; Karl McDonnell, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-1107
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 9, 2017
Decided: May 17, 2017
Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Denise E. Giraudo, OGLETREE DEA-KINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court's order dismissing this employment discrimination action and imposing a pre-filing injunction. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Sewell's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Sewell 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 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