Court Opinion

ID: 9375112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:18.583298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.050591
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1861      Doc: 23         Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1861

        CHARLES ANTHONY DREAD,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        MARYLAND STATE POLICE,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01014-GLR)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Charles A. Dread, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1861         Doc: 23      Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Charles Anthony Dread appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended

        complaint asserting multiple claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

        U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, based on his failure to timely file an administrative change.

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

        34(b). Because Dread’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s

        disposition, he 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.”). We deny

        Dread’s petition for review and a writ of mandamus and deny as moot his motion to reopen

        this appeal. 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