Jackie Jimoh v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Housing

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cv-00495-RJC-DCK . Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998589262].. [10-1636]

Appeal: 10-1636

Document: 23

Date Filed: 05/13/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1636

JACKIE JIMOH,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG HOUSING PARTNERSHIP, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:08-cv-00495-RJC-DCK)

Submitted:

April 27, 2011

Decided:

May 13, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela Gray, GRAY NEWELL, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Charles E. Johnson, Allyson Pierce Lawless,
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1636

Document: 23

Date Filed: 05/13/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jackie
granting

the

Jimoh

appeals

Charlotte

the

district

Mecklenburg

Housing

court’s

order

Partnership,

Incorporated’s motion for summary judgment on Jimoh’s claims of
discrimination

on

the

basis

of

age,

race

and

sex,

and

retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003
& Supp. 2010), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-34 (West 2006 & Supp. 2010), and
42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006). *
no reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and find

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated in the district court’s order and judgment.

Jimoh v.

Charlotte Mecklenburg Hous. P’Ship, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-00495-RJCDCK (W.D.N.C. May 12, 2010).

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

*

Jimoh has failed to brief, and has therefore abandoned,
her state-law claims for intentional and negligent infliction of
emotional distress, negligent supervision and retention of an
employee, and breach of contract.
See Wahi v. Charleston Area
Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009), cert.
denied, 130 S. Ct. 1140 (2010).

2