Case Name: Vanessa POWELL-McCRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAM'S CLUB, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-01
Citations: 441 F. App'x 145
Docket Number: No. 11-1047
Parties: Vanessa POWELL-McCRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAM’S CLUB, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 145–146

Head Matter:
Vanessa POWELL-McCRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAM’S CLUB, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-1047.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.
Vanessa Powell-McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Kerr Adams, Angela Byrd Cummings, Littler Mendelson, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vanessa Powell-McCray appeals (1) the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendant's motion to dismiss this employment discrimination action; and (2) the court's order denying her request to file a surreply and reaffirming the court's order of dismissal. On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Powell-McCray's informal brief does not challenge the district court's conclusion that the action was time-barred based upon her failure to timely file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Powell-McCray has forfeited appellate review of the order dismissing the action.
To the extent Powell-McCray challenges the court's denial of her request for a surreply, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Powell-McCray v. Sam's Club, No. 1:10-cv-00196-WO-PTS (M.D.N.C. Dec. 14, 2010). We deny Powell-McCray's motions to appoint counsel and for injunctive relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.