Theresa M. Young v. LLOYD AUSTIN, DOD Secretary

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1254
THERESA M. YOUNG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LLOYD AUSTIN, DOD Secretary,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00880-RDB)
Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theresa M. Young, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Theresa M. Young appeals the district court’s orders dismissing Young’s
employment discrimination claims 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. And although Young
generally complained in her Rule 59(e) motion that she was not properly served with court
filings in the district court proceedings, the court correctly observed that Young failed to
specify what documents she did not timely receive, and the record confirms that Young
was informed of Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
We therefore affirm the appealed-from orders. Young v. Austin, No. 1:21-cv-00880-
RDB (D. Md. filed Oct. 14, 2021 & entered Oct. 15, 2021; March 8, 2022). 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 of 2 --