James Smith v. Anthem, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1595
JAMES ARTHUR SMITH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ANTHEM, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:15-cv-00197-AWA-LRL)
Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Arthur Smith, Appellant Pro Se. David Edward Constine,
III, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Arthur Smith appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of Anthem, Inc., on Smith’s
discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012), and the Americans with Disabilities
Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12300 (2012). On appeal, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Smith’s informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s dispositive
rulings, Smith has forfeited appellate review of the district
court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423,
430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004); see also Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,
178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (failure to raise issue in
opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue).
Accordingly, we deny Smith’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis and affirm the district court’s judgment. See Smith v.
Anthem, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00197-AWA-LRL (E.D. Va. May 20, 2016).
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