UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1752
DEBRA J. ROACH, a/k/a Debra Jarama Roach,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DR. ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of Defense,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICES,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:07-cv-00136-DCN; 2:07-cv-01574-DCN)
Submitted: October 30, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012
Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Debra J. Roach, Appellant Pro Se. Terri Hearn Bailey, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Debra Roach appeals from the district court’s order
adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge
and determining that Roach’s remaining claims in her
employment-related action were both unexhausted and meritless.
We have reviewed the record in this case, as well as Roach’s
brief on appeal, and we find no reversible error in the district
court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the
reasoning of the district court. See Roach v. Gates, Nos.
2:07-cv-00136-DCN; 2:07-cv-01574-DCN (D.S.C. May 30, 2012). In
addition, we note that, on appeal, Roach has not challenged the
district court’s substantive ruling on the merits of her causes
of action. * As such, she has waived any challenge to this
decision. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The [c]ourt will limit its
review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”); Edwards v.
City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (issues
not raised in opening brief are deemed abandoned). We deny
Roach’s motion for transcripts. We dispense with oral argument
*
Roach did challenge the district court’s procedural
consideration of the merits, averring that the court erred by
examining the merits prior to a hearing and other proceedings.
We reject this claim of error.
2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3