Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Sharon NOBREGA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant - Appellee.
Sharon Nobrega appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to American Airlines, Inc., on Nobrega's employment discrimination claims related to her termination, which she pursued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e–17, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634. On appeal, Nobrega contends that the magistrate judge erred by allowing her former counsel to withdraw without filing a response to American Airlines’ summary judgment motion.* Nobrega also broadly states that she disputes the circumstances of the incident on which American Airlines relied to terminate her employment.
Our appellate review is confined to the issues raised in the appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Nobrega's informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district court's summary judgment award, Nobrega has forfeited appellate review of that award. 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.”). Additionally, we are satisfied that the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the motion to withdraw filed by Nobrega's former counsel. See Parker v. Four Seasons Hotels, Ltd., 845 F.3d 807, 816 (7th Cir. 2017) (explaining standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's summary judgment award in favor of American Airlines. 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
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. Nobrega further asserts that her former counsel never communicated with her about an errata sheet related to her deposition. However, Nobrega's assertion is contradicted by the record.
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Docket No: No. 21-1073
Decided: August 26, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)