
    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.
    No. 16-1506
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 13, 2016
    Decided: September 16, 2016
    Josephat Mua, Appellant Pro Se. Cally-son 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 ATTORNEY GENERAL, Baltimore, Maryland; Charlene Sukari Hardnett, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Josephat Mua appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint against several Defendants. On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Mua’s informal briefs do not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition, Mua has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order. 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, we affirm the district court’s order of dismissal. Mua v. The O’Neal Law Firm, LLP, No. 8:14-cv-02334-PJM, 2016 WL 1258469 (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  