The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1509
JOSEPHAT MUA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY/PRINCE
GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; VERJEANA M. JACOBS,
Individually and as Board Chairperson of Prince George’s
Public Schools; DR. WILLIAM R. HITE, JR., Individually and
as superintendent; ROGER C. THOMAS, Esquire; SYNTHIA J.
SHILLING; MONICA GOLDSON, Individually and as Associates
superintendent of Prince George’s Public Schools; AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
AFSCME; ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES (AFSCME),
AFSCME LOCAL 2250; PIERRE DICKSON, Individually and as
agent of the Board of Education of Prince George’s County;
DR KEVIN MAXWELL, Individually and as superintendent of
Prince George’s Public Schools; DR ALVIN L. CRAWLEY,
Individually and as superintendent; ROBERT J. GASKIN,
Individually and Chief Human Resources of Prince George’s
Public Schools; DR. LILLIAN M. LOWERY; ARDRA O’NEAL; ABBEY
HAIRSTON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:15-cv-02249-PJM)
Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Powell McDermott, Mark
James Murphy, MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, PC,
Washington, D.C.; Judith E. Rivlin, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Josephat Mua appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his complaint raising several civil claims against Defendants.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Mua’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the
district court’s disposition, Mua has forfeited appellate review
of the district court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,
370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we deny
Mua’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the
district court’s order of dismissal. See Mua v. Bd. of Educ. of
Prince George’s Cty., No. 8:15-cv-02249-PJM (D. Md. Mar. 31,
2016). 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
3