
    Mr. Calvin CHILDS-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, Defendant-Appellee, and Department of Public Works Bureau of Water and Wastewater; Dr. Lorenzo Hester, Human Resources Executive; Steve Blatterman, Supervisor of Environmental Services; Gene Scapulla, Environmental Services Manager; Edward J. Brady, Traffic Maintenance Worker 1, Acting Watershed Maintenance Supervisor; Marvin C. Payne, Motor Vehicle 1, and Acting Watershed Maintenance Supervisor; Regina Grande Brown, Human Resources Executive; Debra Moore Carter, Labor Commissioner; Trevor Taylor, Chief Shop Steward on Union; Glenard S. Middleton, Sr., President. Balto. Mun. Empl. & AFSCME coun. 67 local 44; Ralph Collison, Bureau Head on Environmental Services; Miles Woodhouse, Human Resources Executive; Connie Wilkerson, Administrative Officer 1; Christine E. Hooper, Administrative Officer Environmental Services Div; Gary Hines, Shop Steward Local Union # 44; David Scott, Director of Public Works; Gary Squires, Heavy Equipment Optr. II; Andrew L. Morris, Heavy Equipment Operator II; Luke Brackett, Ranger; Robert Guy, Investigator, the Dept. of Public Works; James D. Levy, M.D., Occupational Medical Agency; Kyle Elliott, Comm Laborer Adm. Off of Environmental Services; Dorthy Bryant, Vice President, of the Local 44 Union AFSCME; American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Union Local 44; City of Baltimore; District Council 67, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Defendants.
    No. 13-2386.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 27, 2014.
    Decided: March 31, 2014.
    Calvin Childs-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Marla Y. Johnson, Sabrina Willis, Baltimore City Law Department, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Childs-Bey appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment for Defendants and dismissing his employment discrimination action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Childs-Bey does not challenge in his informal brief the basis for the magistrate judge’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the order. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s judgment. 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. 
      
      . The parties consented to proceeding to final judgment before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
     