The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
23-1518•Theresa M. Young v. United States of America
23-1518Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 26, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1518
THERESA M. YOUNG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
MARY SEYMOUR,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:22-cv-00241-DKC)
Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 28, 2023
Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 disposing of several motions,
including Defendant’s motion to dismiss Young’s claims for libel, defamation, and slander,
which the district court granted, 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. Finally, to the extent
Young seeks to raise new claims for the first time on appeal, she may not do so. Brown v.
Am. Broad. Co., 704 F.2d 1296, 1303 (4th Cir. 1983). We therefore affirm the district
court’s orders. Young v. United States, No. 8:22-cv-00241-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2023;
Apr. 6, 2023). 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.