USCA4 Appeal: 22-1254 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1254

THERESA M. YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LLOYD AUSTIN, DOD Secretary, Defendant - Appellee, and MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-00880-RDB)

Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theresa M. Young, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1254 Doc: 9 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Theresa M. Young appeals the district court’s orders dismissing Young’s employment discrimination claims and denying Young’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Young’s informal brief fails to meaningfully challenge the district court’s rationale for dismissing her claims, Young has forfeited appellate review of the court’s disposition. 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.”). To the extent Young challenges the district court’s refusal to appoint her counsel, we discern no abuse of discretion in this ruling. And although Young generally complained in her Rule 59(e) motion that she was not properly served with court filings in the district court proceedings, the court correctly observed that Young failed to specify what documents she did not timely receive, and the record confirms that Young was informed of Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

We therefore affirm the appealed-from orders. Young v. Austin, No. 1:21-cv-00880- RDB (D. Md. filed Oct. 14, 2021 & entered Oct. 15, 2021; March 8, 2022). 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