Court Opinion

ID: 9365009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 21:00:39.359975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.155622
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1925      Doc: 16         Filed: 01/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1925

        LOLITA M. MATAMMU,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CONTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, a/k/a Fairfax County Health Department,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-01468-RDA-WEF)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 19, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Lolita M. Matammu, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Pace Baucom, Assistant County
        Attorney, Jamie Marie Greenzweig, FAIRFAX COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
        Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1925      Doc: 16         Filed: 01/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Lolita M. Matammu appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment

        in favor of Defendant in Matammu’s employment discrimination suit. On appeal, we

        confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because

        Matammu’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition,

        she has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d

        170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth

        Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). 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

                                                     2