UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2295
MELVIN C. BOMAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE; DEBORAH MOORE-CARTER,
Labor Commissioner; MARGARET B. MARTIN, Department of
General Services Division Chief III; KHALIL ZAIED, Director,
Department of General Services; REGINIA GRANDE-BROWN,
Department of General Services, Personnel Director; DR.
KEITH LEE, Mercy Medical Clinic; DR. AMY ESPY-SMITH, Mercy
Medical Clinic; LISA CONIC, Mercy Medical Clinic,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:11-cv-00507-RDB)
Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 21, 2012
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Melvin C. Bomar, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl Simpson Parker,
Assistant City Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland; Steven G.
Metzger, GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Melvin C. Bomar appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101
against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Labor
Commissioner Deborah Moore-Carter, Margaret B. Martin, Khalil
Zaied, and Reginia Grande-Brown of the Department of General
Services, as well as Doctors Keith Lee and Amy Espy-Smith, and
Lisa Conic of the Mercy Medical Clinic. The district court
dismissed with prejudice Bomar’s claims under the ADA for
failure to state a cause of action. The district court further
dismissed with prejudice Bomar’s claims under Title VII, except
those claims against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error as to the district court’s dismissal of these claims with
prejudice. We affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Bomar v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. 1:11-cv-
00507-RDB (D. Md. Oct. 27, 2011).
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006) and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b). Because the district court dismissed Bomar’s Title VII
claims against the Mayor and City of Baltimore without
2
prejudice, the district court’s dismissal of Bomar’s case is
interlocutory and not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss this
portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3