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)
25-1097•Maahnchooh Donald Ghogomu v. THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INCORPORATED, Corporate Head Office (Principal)
25-1097Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 25, 2025
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1097
MAAHNCHOOH DONALD GHOGOMU,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INCORPORATED, Corporate Head
Office (Principal); DAVID FOSTER, PNC General Manager, Customer Public
Relations Office,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Timothy J. Sullivan, Magistrate Judge. (8:24-cv-01083-TJS)
Submitted: August 21, 2025 Decided: August 25, 2025
Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maahnchooh Donald Ghogomu, Appellant Pro Se. Gerard John Emig, GLEASON
FLYNN EMIG MCAFEE, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Maahnchooh Donald Ghogomu appeals the magistrate judge’s order* dismissing for
failure to state a claim his civil complaint alleging intentional infliction of emotional
distress. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ghogomu’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the
magistrate judge’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order. 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 parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.