Raykisha Morrison v. Resource Management Concept

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000083981-2]; denying Motion to supplement [1000083984-2]; denying Motion to seal [1000083987-2] Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00651-GCM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000155588]. Mailed to: Raykisha Morrison. [17-1505]

Appeal: 17-1505

Doc: 16

Filed: 09/14/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1505

RAYKISHA MORRISON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS,
Defendant - Appellee.
-----------------------------EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Amicus Supporting Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00651-GCM)

Submitted: August 31, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Decided: September 14, 2017

Appeal: 17-1505

Doc: 16

Filed: 09/14/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Raykisha Morrison, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Lee, Deputy General Counsel, Jennifer
S. Goldstein, Associate General Counsel, Elizabeth E. Theran, Acting Assistant General
Counsel, Paul D. Ramshaw, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Amicus supporting Appellant. Gregory Wenzl
Brown, Kristi Lyn Gavalier, Eric Richard Martinson, BROWN LAW LLP, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-1505

Doc: 16

Filed: 09/14/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Raykisha Morrison appeals the district court’s order dismissing her employment
discrimination suit.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Morrison v. Resource
Mgmt. Concepts, No. 3:16-cv-00651-GCM (W.D.N.C. Mar. 21, 2017).

We deny

Morrison’s motions to appoint counsel, to supplement the record, and to seal.

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

3