Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Robert Harris v. Patrick Donahoe, 15-1695 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-1695 Visitors: 17
Filed: Dec. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1695 ROBERT W. HARRIS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00427-REP) Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Jud
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-1695


ROBERT W. HARRIS,

                Plaintiff – Appellant,

          v.

PATRICK R. DONAHOE,      Postmaster   General,    United   States
Postal Service,

                Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00427-REP)


Submitted:   November 24, 2015             Decided:   December 22, 2015


Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert W. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Robert    W.     Harris     appeals    the   district       court’s      order

dismissing      this    action    alleging    employment    discrimination        for

failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).                        After de

novo review, see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 
550 U.S. 544
, 555

(2007), we conclude that dismissal was proper.                       Even with a

liberal   construction       of    the   complaint,    we   find    that     Harris’

unintelligible         factual    allegations   were    insufficient       to    give

rise to an inference of liability and that his claims for relief

were largely unintelligible.             See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
556 U.S. 662
, 679 (2009); Giarrantano v. Johnson, 
521 F.3d 298
, 302 (4th

Cir.   2015).      We    accordingly     affirm.       We   dispense   with      oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                                           AFFIRMED




                                          2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer