Charlene Raiford v. North Carolina Central Univ.
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00548-CCE-JEP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Charlene Raiford. [15-2424]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
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
Defendants - Appellees,
GEORGE MELVILLE JOHNSON,
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)
March 20, 2017
March 28, 2017
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 4
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.
affirm in part and dismiss in part.
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 54546 (1949).
The summary judgment order Raiford seeks to appeal
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
along the route to final judgment”).
Accordingly, we dismiss
this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Defendants’ favor and the denial of her postverdict motion, we
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s handling of
accurately conveyed relevant contextual information to the jury,
Pg: 4 of 4
and the evidence supported the jury’s verdict.
affirm the judgment.
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
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?