“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”
How later courts described this case
- “The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1344 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1344
JUDY A. ATKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SMYTH COUNTY VIRGINIA SCHOOL BOARD; KEVIN LEONARD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Abingdon. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-00048-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: October 13, 2022 Decided: October 17, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Judy A. Atkins, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Royer, ROYER LAW FIRM, P.C., Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1344 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/17/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Judy A. Atkins appeals the district court’s judgment entered in Defendants’ favor
after the court granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion on Atkins’ sexual
harassment claim, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Atkins’ state
law assault claim, thereby dismissing that claim without prejudice. * On appeal, we confine
our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Atkins’
informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s dispositions, she has
forfeited appellate review of the court’s dispositive orders. 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
*
The district court previously granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion
to dismiss Atkins’ other claims.
2