Strickland v. Baker

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1197 ROBERT LEON STRICKLAND, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. J. FRANK BAKER, Superintendent Sumter School District Two; ZONA JEFFERSON, Superintendent Sumter School District 17; SHARON TEIGUE, Director Sumter Career Readiness Center Sumter County Career Center; GREGORY JONES, Assistant Director Sumter Career Readiness Center Sumter County Career Center; STUART LIDDELL; LARRY ADDISON, Chairman Sumter County School District Two Board of Trustees, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:08-cv-02721-CMC) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Leon Strickland, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Meredith Lee Seibert, Andrea E. White, DUFF, WHITE & TURNER, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Charles J. Boykin, Stephanie Nicole Lawrence, BOYKIN & DAVIS, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Strickland, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer and dismissing his employment discrimination and retaliation action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Strickland v. Baker, No. 3:08-cv-02721- CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 12, 2010). Strickland also appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Finding no abuse of the district court’s discretion, we likewise affirm that order on the reasoning of the district court. Strickland v. Baker, No. 3:08-cv-02721-CMC (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2010). See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 402 (4th Cir. 1998). 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 2