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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?