794 Fed.Appx. 336 (4th Cir. 2020), 19-2066, Triplin v. Maryland Department of Health

Docket Nº:19-2066
Citation:794 Fed.Appx. 336
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:Tyrie TRIPLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Defendant-Appellee.
Attorney:Tyrie Triplin, Appellant Pro Se.
Judge Panel:Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Case Date:February 24, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 336

794 Fed.Appx. 336 (4th Cir. 2020)

Tyrie TRIPLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-2066

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

February 24, 2020

Submitted: February 20, 2020

UNPUBLISHED

Editorial Note:

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01225-GLR)

Tyrie Triplin, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tyrie L. Triplin appeals the district court’s memorandum order dismissing her complaint for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § § 12101-12213 (2018) (ADA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2018). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Triplin’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s dispositive jurisdictional conclusions regarding her ADA and defamation claims, Triplin has forfeited appellate review of those portions 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."). Turning to Triplin’s Title VII claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Triplin v. Md. Dep’t of Health, No. 1:18-cv-01225-GLR (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2019). 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

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP