Walter Slocum v. Patrick Donahoe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cv-03714-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998722345].. [11-1106]

Appeal: 11-1106

Document: 34

Date Filed: 11/15/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1106

WALTER J. SLOCUM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General of the United States,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:08-cv-03714-CMC)

Submitted:

October 25, 2011

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Decided:

Circuit

November 15, 2011

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Cornelius
J.
Sullivan,
SULLIVAN
&
WALSH,
Mattapan,
Massachusetts, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, Christie V. Newman, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina; David C. Belt, Acting Chief Counsel,
Michael J. Elston, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1106

Document: 34

Date Filed: 11/15/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Walter J. Slocum appeals the district court’s order
finding in favor of Defendant on Slocum’s age discrimination
claim.

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district

have

reviewed

court.

Slocum

(D.S.C. Jan. 4, 2011).

the

record

v.

and

find

No.

Donahoe,

no

reversible

3:08-cv-03714-CMC

Slocum also seeks to appeal the district

court’s previous order granting summary judgment in favor of
Defendant on Slocum’s disability discrimination claim.

However,

because Slocum limited the scope of his notice of appeal to only
the district court’s order on Slocum’s age discrimination claim,
his

appeal

of

the

district

disability

discrimination

court

must

Torres

and

court’s

claim

is

dismissed

for

Oakland

v.

be

Scavenger

Co.,

previous

not

lack
487

order

properly
of

on

the

before

this

jurisdiction.

See

U.S.

312,

317

(1988)

(requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 3 are jurisdictional).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

2