Voncille Stukes v. Michael Chertoff

Filing 920091001

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6249 VONCILLE O. STUKES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Security, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Defendant Appellee, and RICHARD H. GOTTLIEB, Officer In Charge; JUDY T. FERGUSON, Supervisor Immigration Officer; ROSEMARY L. MELVILLE, District Director, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00316-MR-CH) Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: October 1, 2009 Before MICHAEL, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Voncille O. Stukes, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Voncille O. Stukes appeals the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on Stukes' claims of race and disability discrimination and retaliation, and denying reconsideration of that order. district court's order denying With respect to the Stukes has reconsideration, failed to challenge that order on appeal and, therefore, has forfeited 34(b). appellate With review to of that order. See 4th Cir. R. respect the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for Stukes v. Chertoff, We dispense the reasons stated by the district court. No. 3:06-cv-00316-MR-CH (W.D.N.C. Dec. 9, 2008). 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?