Charlene Raiford v. North Carolina Central Univ.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00548-CCE-JEP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000050344]. Mailed to: Charlene Raiford. [15-2424]

Appeal: 15-2424

Doc: 34

Filed: 03/28/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2424

CHARLENE RAIFORD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA CENTRAL UNIVERSITY, through the BOARD OF
GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA; RAYMOND C.
PIERCE, In his individual capacity; LAUREN COLLINS, In her
individual capacity; NICHELLE PERRY, In her individual
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
GEORGE MELVILLE JOHNSON,
Party-in-Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00548-CCE-JEP)

Submitted:

March 20, 2017

Decided:

March 28, 2017

Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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

Appeal: 15-2424

Doc: 34

Filed: 03/28/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

Charlene Raiford, Appellant Pro Se.
Kimberly D. Potter,
Assistant Attorney General, Joseph A. Newsome, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Vicente O. De La
Cruz, MELVILLE JOHNSON, P.C., Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2424

Doc: 34

Filed: 03/28/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Charlene

Raiford

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

denying Defendants’ summary judgment motion in part, entering
judgment in favor of Defendants after a jury trial, and denying
her postverdict motion for judgment as a matter of law.

We

affirm in part and dismiss in part.
This

court

may

exercise

jurisdiction

only

over

final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral

orders,

28

U.S.C.

§ 1292

(2012);

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949).
is

neither

The summary judgment order Raiford seeks to appeal
a

final

collateral order.

order

nor

an

appealable

interlocutory

or

Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 184 (2011)

(holding that “a party . . . [may not] appeal an order denying
summary judgment after a full trial on the merits” because that
“order

retains

its

interlocutory

character

along the route to final judgment”).

as

simply

a

step

Accordingly, we dismiss

this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Turning

to

Raiford’s

appeal

of

the

jury

verdict

in

Defendants’ favor and the denial of her postverdict motion, we
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

There

was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s handling of
the

video

deposition,

the

challenged

jury

instructions

accurately conveyed relevant contextual information to the jury,
3

Appeal: 15-2424

Doc: 34

Filed: 03/28/2017

Pg: 4 of 4

and the evidence supported the jury’s verdict.
affirm the judgment.

Accordingly, we

Raiford v. N.C. Cent. Univ., No. 1:12-cv-

00548-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2015).

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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4