Gregory Reid, Jr. v. Charlotte Mecklenburg School

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000014718]. [16-1892]

Appeal: 16-1892

Doc: 23

Filed: 02/01/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1892

GREGORY ARTHUR REID, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS; MECKLENBURG COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
RACHEL CORN; MAUREEN FURR; JANET H.
HOUSTON; BRANDY NELSON; ALICIA MCCREE,

HAMILTON;

RHONDA

Defendants.

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)

Submitted:

January 27, 2017

Decided:

February 1, 2017

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Arthur Reid, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Courtney Collins
Rogers, CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
GOVERNMENT
CENTER,
Charlotte,

Appeal: 16-1892

Doc: 23

Filed: 02/01/2017

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1892

Doc: 23

Filed: 02/01/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
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.

We

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).

We

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion,
as Reid was able to participate in the trial proceedings and
does

not

allege

that

participation

substantial danger to his health.
492 F.2d 913, 916 (4th Cir. 1974).

3

in

the

trial

presented

a

See Latham v. Crofters, Inc.,

Appeal: 16-1892

Doc: 23

Filed: 02/01/2017

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 . . . .”
F.3d

339,

349

omitted).

(4th

Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 762
Cir.

2014)

(internal

quotation

marks

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
error

was

harmless,

as

the

district

court

admitted

only

the

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
Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, although we grant Reid leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

We

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
materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4