Shelley C. White, Jr. v. City of Annapolis, Maryland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-01330-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999820846]. Mailed to: James Spearman Jr. 1321 Sycamore Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403. [15-2121, 15-2124]

Appeal: 15-2121

Doc: 37

Filed: 05/12/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2121

SHELLEY C. WHITE, JR.; CARL BOUIE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
JAMES SPEARMAN, JR.; FLOYD CARSON, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND,
Defendant - Appellee.

No. 15-2124

JAMES SPEARMAN, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
SHELLEY C. WHITE, JR.; CARL BOUIE; FLOYD CARSON, JR.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal: 15-2121

Doc: 37

Filed: 05/12/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-01330-JFM)

Submitted:

April 29, 2016

Decided:

May 12, 2016

Before SHEDD and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Neil E. Duke, OBER, KALER, GRIMES & SHRIVER, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellants White and Bouie. James Spearman, Jr.,
Appellant Pro Se.
Gary M. Elson, Assistant City Attorney,
Annapolis, Maryland, Devin John Doolan, Jr., SAUL EWING, LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2121

Doc: 37

Filed: 05/12/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Plaintiffs Shelley C. White,
Jr., Carl Bouie, and James Spearman, Jr., * challenge the district
court’s order granting the City of Annapolis, Maryland (“the
City”),

summary

judgment

on

Plaintiffs’

discrimination,

harassment and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e
to 2000e-17 (2012).

Finding no reversible error, we affirm the

district court’s order.
The district court granted the City summary judgment on
White’s and Bouie’s claims because either they failed to exhaust
their claims, or they failed to establish all of the elements
necessary to make out prima facie cases for their claims.
Appeal

No.

challenges

15-2121,
to

the

White

district

and

Bouie

court’s

only

raise

determinative

In

general
holdings.

These general challenges are insufficient to bring before this
court the correctness of the district court’s holdings.

See,

e.g., Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 653 n.7 (4th
Cir. 2006) (holding that a single sentence in an opening brief
asserting a district court’s alleged error “is insufficient to
raise

on

appeal

any

merits-based

*

challenge

to

the

district

A fourth Plaintiff, Floyd Carson, Jr., has not appealed
the dismissal of his claims.

3

Appeal: 15-2121

Doc: 37

Filed: 05/12/2016

court’s ruling”).

Pg: 4 of 4

White’s and Bouie’s failure to challenge the

district court’s dispositive holdings on appeal amounts to a
waiver of appellate review over the district court’s holdings.
See United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir.
2004) (“It is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in
the

argument

section

of

the

opening

brief

are

abandoned.”);

Canady v. Crestar Mortg. Corp., 109 F.3d 969, 973-74 (4th Cir.
1997) (holding that issues not briefed are waived).
In Appeal No. 15-2124, Spearman proceeds pro se.
afford his informal brief a liberal construction.

We thus

See Gordon v.

Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978) (holding that a pro
se litigant’s pleadings should be construed liberally to avoid
inequity).
have

Although we have considered Spearman’s arguments and

reviewed

the

district

court

record,

we

discern

no

reversible error in the district court’s decision to grant the
City summary judgment on Spearman’s claims.
Based

on

the

foregoing,

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

order granting the City summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4