Joseph Gilreath v. Cumberland County Board of Ed.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999549480-2]. Originating case number: 5:11-cv-00627-BR. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999729568]. [15-1210]

Appeal: 15-1210

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1210

JOSEPH GILREATH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
THOMAS HATCH; MICHAEL BAIN,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cv-00627-BR)

Submitted:

November 30, 2015

Decided:

January 5, 2016

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Gilreath, Appellant Pro Se.
Daniel William Clark, Adam
S. Mitchell, THARRINGTON SMITH LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1210

Doc: 34

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Joseph
against

Gilreath

his

(“CCBE”),

filed

employer,

pursuant

to

a

disability

Cumberland
the

discrimination

County

Americans

with

Board

of

action

Education

Disabilities

Act,

raising a failure to accommodate claim and a retaliation claim.
He appeals the district court’s order granting CCBE’s motion for
a directed verdict on his failure to accommodate claim, the jury
verdict

in

favor

of

CCBE

on

his

retaliation

claim,

and

the

district court’s order denying his various posttrial motions.
We

have

reviewed

the

proceedings

below,

including

the

transcripts of the trial and the district court’s orders, and
find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly,

reasons stated by the district court.

we

affirm

for

the

Gilreath v. Cumberland

Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 5:11-cv-00627-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 5, 2014;
Nov. 7, 2014; Jan. 27, 2015).

We further deny Gilreath’s motion

for the appointment of counsel.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2