UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1506
JOSEPHAT MUA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
THE O’NEAL LAW FIRM, LLP; THATCHER LAW FIRM; SULLIVAN,
TALBOTT & BATT; BRYAN CHAPMAN; RMA & ASSOCIATES, LLC;
ROBERT E. CAPPELL; HARDNETT & ASSOCIATES; BRADFORD
ASSOCIATES; PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A.; MARYLAND STATE EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION; ASSOCIATION OF SUPERVISORY & ADMINISTRATIVE
SCHOOL; MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; C. SUKARI
HARDNETT, LLC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-02334-PJM)
Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Callyson Taylor Grove, Jodi V.
Terranova, WILSON ELSER, Washington, D.C.; Robert Judah Baror,
Lindsay A. Freedman, Linda Hitt Thatcher, THATCHER LAW FIRM,
Greenbelt, Maryland; David George Mulquin, BRAULT & GRAHAM, LLC,
Rockville, Maryland; Bryan Chapman, Washington, D.C.; Raouf
Muhammad Abdullah, ABDULLAH & ASSOCIATES LLC, Upper Marlboro,
Maryland; Robert Elmer Cappell, ROBERT CAPPELL ATTORNEY AT LAW,
Bowie, Maryland; Andrew G. Scott, Leslie Robert Stellman, PESSIN
KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland; Christopher Mark Feldenzer,
SEROTTE ROCKMAN & WESTCOTT, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Nathaniel
David Johnson, LAW OFFICE OF NATHANIEL D. JOHNSON, Waldorf,
Maryland; William H. Fields, OFFICE OF THE ATTONEY GENERAL,
Baltimore, Maryland; Charlene Sukari Hardnett, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Josephat Mua appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his civil complaint against several Defendants. On appeal, we
confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Mua’s informal briefs do
not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition,
Mua 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). Accordingly, although we grant Mua’s motions
to exceed the length limitations for his informal brief, for
leave to amend/correct his informal brief, and to supplement his
amended brief, we affirm the district court’s order of
dismissal. Mua v. The O’Neal Law Firm, LLP, No. 8:14-cv-02334-
PJM (D. Md. Mar. 31, 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
3