Court Opinion

ID: 9778330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:00:48.733388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:07.676881
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1518      Doc: 11         Filed: 08/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1518

        THERESA M. YOUNG,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Defendant - Appellee,

                     and

        MARY SEYMOUR,

                            Defendant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:22-cv-00241-DKC)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 28, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Theresa M. Young, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1518         Doc: 11      Filed: 08/28/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Theresa M. Young appeals the district court’s orders disposing of several motions,

        including Defendant’s motion to dismiss Young’s claims for libel, defamation, and slander,

        which the district court granted, and denying Young’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. On

        appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R.

        34(b). Because Young’s informal brief fails to meaningfully challenge the district court’s

        rationale for dismissing her claims, Young has forfeited appellate review of the court’s

        disposition. 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.”). To the extent Young challenges the district court’s refusal to

        appoint her counsel, we discern no abuse of discretion in this ruling. Finally, to the extent

        Young seeks to raise new claims for the first time on appeal, she may not do so. Brown v.

        Am. Broad. Co., 704 F.2d 1296, 1303 (4th Cir. 1983). We therefore affirm the district

        court’s orders. Young v. United States, No. 8:22-cv-00241-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2023;

        Apr. 6, 2023). 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