CLAUDEN 11326 v. SOUTHSIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD (2020)
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Janice CLAUDEN, Grievance Hearing of Case No. 11326, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHSIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD; Frances Clark, Board of Director; Elizabeth Engelhorn, Executive Director; Paul Mandel, Director of Community Services; Lysaundra Jones; Dee Holland-Brock, Human Rights Advocate; Allyson Collins; Stacy Palmer; Sharon Gavitt, Human Resource Manager, Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: August 27, 2020
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Janice Clauden, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Paul Holdsworth, Courtney Martin Malveaux, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Janice Clauden appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). As an initial matter, we confine our appellate review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Liberally construed, Clauden's informal briefs challenge only the district court's dismissal of her due process claim for failure to state a claim and dismissal as untimely of her claims for wrongful termination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. Clauden therefore has forfeited appellate review of the remainder of the district 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.”).
Turning to Clauden's preserved claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm as to these issues for the reasons stated by the district court. Clauden v. Southside Cmty. Servs. Bd., No. 3:19-cv-00601-JAG, 2020 WL 2092716 (E.D. Va. May 1, 2020); see also Ott v. Md. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 909 F.3d 655, 660-61 (4th Cir. 2018) (discussing equitable tolling); Cannon v. Village of Bald Head Island, 891 F.3d 489, 501, 503 (4th Cir. 2018) (describing requirements of due process claim). 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.