Theresa Young v. US, No. 23-1518 (4th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-1518 THERESA M. YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and MARY SEYMOUR, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:22-cv-00241-DKC) Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 28, 2023 Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theresa M. Young, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Theresa M. Young appeals the district court’s orders disposing of several motions, including Defendant’s motion to dismiss Young’s claims for libel, defamation, and slander, which the district court granted, 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. Finally, to the extent Young seeks to raise new claims for the first time on appeal, she may not do so. Brown v. Am. Broad. Co., 704 F.2d 1296, 1303 (4th Cir. 1983). We therefore affirm the district court’s orders. Young v. United States, No. 8:22-cv-00241-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2023; Apr. 6, 2023). 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.