UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1366
DARRYL E. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TOWN OF ZEBULON; TOWN OF ZEBULON POLICE DEPARTMENT; ROBERT
MATHENY; TIM HAYWORTH; MICHAEL MCGLOTHLIN; SCOTT FINCH,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:06-cv-00218-BO)
Submitted: January 27, 2009 Decided: February 6, 2009
Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angela Newell Gray, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Victoria A. Street, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Darryl E. Wright appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment and dismissing his claims under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981,
1983 (2000), and North Carolina state law. This court reviews a
district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo,
drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir.
2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1483 (2008). Summary judgment
is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Wright v. Town of Zebulon, No. 4:06-cv-00218-BO
(E.D.N.C. Feb. 26, 2008). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3