Case Name: Charles BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARFIELD & ROHR, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-28
Citations: 687 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 17-1324
Parties: Charles BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARFIELD & ROHR, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 687
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
Charles BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARFIELD & ROHR, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-1324
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 25, 2017
Decided: April 28, 2017
Charles Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Jay Swerdlin, Parker Engle Thoeni, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Bailey appeals the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bailey's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Bailey 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