Josephat Mua v. The O'Neal Law Firm, LLP, No. 16-1506 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1506 JOSEPHAT MUA, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THE O’NEAL LAW FIRM, LLP; THATCHER LAW FIRM;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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Josephat Mua appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint against several Defendants. confine brief. our review to the issues See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). raised in On appeal, we the Appellant’s Because Mua’s informal briefs do not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, Mua has order. forfeited appellate review of the district court’s 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, dismissal. we affirm the district court’s order of 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.