Summary
granting summary judgment on a wrongful termination claim and observing that six months is "the amount of time that it normally takes to fill a position"
Summary of this case from Moore v. PenFed Title, LLCOpinion
No. 18-1987
01-30-2019
KEVIN R. VESSELLS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KAYDON RING & SEAL, INC., Defendant - Appellee.
Kevin R. Vessells, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Ann Mullen, PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-01516-JKB) Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin R. Vessells, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Ann Mullen, PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Kevin R. Vessells appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment on his civil complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Vessells' informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court's disposition, Vessells has forfeited appellate review 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."). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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.
In his informal brief, Vessells also seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Because Vessells did not amend his notice of appeal or file a separate notice of appeal from this order, and filed his informal brief outside of the appeal period, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of the Rule 59(e) order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(a), (4)(B)(ii). --------
AFFIRMED