Torrey Josey v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999241758-2] Originating case number: 0:11-cv-02993-CMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999334691]. Mailed to: Josey. [13-2295]

Appeal: 13-2295

Doc: 17

Filed: 04/11/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2295

TORREY JOSEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (0:11-cv-02993-CMC)

Submitted:

March 31, 2014

Decided:

April 11, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Torrey Josey, Appellant Pro Se.
Danny Michael Henthorne,
LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2295

Doc: 17

Filed: 04/11/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Torrey

Josey

appeals

the

district

court’s

amended

order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and denying Josey’s motion for default judgment, * the magistrate
judge’s oral order denying Josey’s motions for subpoenas, and
the

district

court’s

judge’s

report

motion

for

and

order

recommendation

summary

discrimination,

wrongful

environment claims.
reversible error.

adopting

judgment

in

part

the

magistrate

and

granting

Defendant’s

on

Josey’s

employment

termination,

and

hostile

work

We have reviewed the record and find no

Accordingly, although we grant Josey leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court.

Josey v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No.

0:11-cv-02993-CMC (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2012; filed July 18, 2012 &
entered July 19, 2012; Oct. 8, 2013).

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*

Defendant argues that Josey did not effectively appeal the
district court’s order denying his motion for default judgment
and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
We
conclude that, although Josey’s notice of appeal was technically
deficient under Fed. R. App. P. 3(c), Defendant was on notice
that Josey sought to appeal this order and will not be
prejudiced by our review of it.
See Levald, Inc. v. City of
Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 691 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that,
when appellant addresses the merits of an issue in his opening
brief, this alone “is enough to demonstrate that the appellee
had notice of the issue and did not suffer prejudice from the
appellant’s failure to specify the order in the notice of
appeal”).

2

Appeal: 13-2295

Doc: 17

Filed: 04/11/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3