Gregory Reid, Jr. v. Charlotte Mecklenburg School
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999908787-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999913768-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999913768-3] Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00066-FDW-DSC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . [16-1892]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY ARTHUR REID, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS; MECKLENBURG COUNTY BOARD OF
Defendants - Appellees,
RACHEL CORN; MAUREEN FURR; JANET H.
HOUSTON; BRANDY NELSON; ALICIA MCCREE,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00066-FDW-DSC)
January 27, 2017
February 1, 2017
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Arthur Reid, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Pg: 2 of 4
North Carolina; Karl Dean Shatley, II, CAMPBELL SHATLEY, PLLC,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 4
Gregory Arthur Reid, Jr., appeals from the district court’s
judgment entered after a jury trial on his retaliation claim
raised pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012).
Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
Reid first challenges the district court’s order granting
partial summary judgment to Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools.
have reviewed the record and conclude that no genuine dispute of
material fact exists.
See Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the
Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 565, 568 (4th Cir. 2015) (setting forth
standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court.
Reid v. Charlotte Mecklenburg
Schs., No. 3:14-cv-00066-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2016.)
Reid next contends that the district court erred in denying
his motion for a continuance.
We review for abuse of discretion
a district court’s decision to deny a motion for continuance.
United States v. Speed, 53 F.3d 643, 644 (4th Cir. 1995).
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion,
as Reid was able to participate in the trial proceedings and
substantial danger to his health.
492 F.2d 913, 916 (4th Cir. 1974).
See Latham v. Crofters, Inc.,
Pg: 4 of 4
Finally, Reid contends that the district court erred in
admitting a photograph of him and his boyfriend.
“We review a
trial court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence for abuse
of discretion . . . .”
Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 762
An evidentiary error is harmless unless it affects a
party’s substantial rights.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 61; United States
ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th Cir. 2015).
Even if the district court could be deemed to have erred, any
single photograph that did not identify the other individual as
Reid’s boyfriend, and the court gave a limiting instruction.
See Smith v. Balt. City Police Dep’t, 840 F.3d 193, 203-04 (4th
Accordingly, although we grant Reid leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
further deny Reid’s motion for transcripts at government expense
and to appoint counsel.
We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
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?