Evelyn Conway v. Gina Haspel, No. 18-2175 (4th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2175 EVELYN M. CONWAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GINA HASPEL, in her official capacity as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; ELIZABETH V., as the Grievance Officer in the Office of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and Legal Advisor to former Chief, Central Eurasia Division, Washington, DC; VICKIE B., as the then Chief of Counterintelligence and Counterespionage Advisor to former Chief, Central Eurasia Division, Washington, DC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01087-AJT-IDD) Submitted: July 16, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Evelyn M. Conway, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Anne Wetzler, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Evelyn M. Conway appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Conway’s civil action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Conway’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Conway has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny as moot Conway’s pending “Motion to Leave the Court to Attend to Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Court Case.” 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 2
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.
