Larry Davis v. Weiser Security Services, Inc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00522-MOC-DSC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999914293]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-1486]

Appeal: 16-1486

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1486

LARRY DAVIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
WEISER SECURITY SERVICES, INC; NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL
GUARD; RANDY POWELL; JAMES ROSES; JERRY BOWMAN; GUY
MADERES,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00522-MOC-DSC)

Submitted:

August 18, 2016

Decided:

August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Ruth Dangel, OGLETREE
DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina;
Vanessa N. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1486

Doc: 14

Filed: 08/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Larry Davis appeals from the district court’s judgment in
Defendants’ favor on Davis’ racial harassment and discrimination
claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012).
also

challenges

the

district

court’s

order

granting

Davis
Davis’

motion for reconsideration, but reaffirming the dismissal order.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s

brief.

See

4th

Cir.

R.

34(b).

Because

Davis’

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s

dispositive

rulings,

Davis

has

review of the district court’s orders.

forfeited

appellate

See Williams v. Giant

Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004); see also
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir.
1999)

(failure

to

raise

issue

abandonment of that issue).
court’s orders.

in

opening

brief

constitutes

Accordingly, we affirm the district

See Davis v. Weiser Sec. Servs., Inc., No.

3:13-cv-00522-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. filed Mar. 1, 2016, entered Mar.
2, 2016; Mar. 31, 2016).

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