Fenyang Stewart v. UNC System

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [1000244742-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01487-AJT-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000309694]. [17-1813]

Appeal: 17-1813

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/11/2018

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1813

FENYANG AJAMU STEWART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SYSTEM; NORTH CAROLINA
AGRICULTURAL & TECHNICAL STATE UNIVERSITY; NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF AEROSPACE ASSOCIATES, INC.; WILLIAM EDMONSON,
NIA Distinguished Langley Professor, Full Professor, North Carolina A&T State
University; JOHN KELLY, Chairman; ELECTRIC AND COMPUTER
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
NORTH CAROLINA A & T STATE
UNIVERSITY; CATHY HOPKINS, Human Resources Director, National Institute
of Aerospace,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:15-cv-01487-AJT-JFA)

Submitted: May 31, 2018

Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Decided: June 11, 2018

Appeal: 17-1813

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/11/2018

Pg: 2 of 3

Fenyang Ajamu Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Eve Grandis Campbell, Laura K. Musick,
O’HAGAN MEYER PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-1813

Doc: 41

Filed: 06/11/2018

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Fenyang Ajamu Stewart appeals the district court’s order dismissing the remainder
of his amended complaint for failure to state a claim. See Stewart v. Univ. of N.C. Sys.,
673 F. App’x 269, 270-72 (4th Cir. 2016) (No. 16-1552). We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Stewart’s motion to strike and affirm
substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Stewart v. Univ. of N.C. Sys., No.
1:15-cv-01487-AJT-JFA (E.D. Va. June 9, 2017). 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