Filed: Aug. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1427 RICKY W. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KEVIN MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-00707-RJC-DCK) Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 26, 2019 Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1427 RICKY W. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KEVIN MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-00707-RJC-DCK) Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 26, 2019 Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1427 RICKY W. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KEVIN MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-00707-RJC-DCK) Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 26, 2019 Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky W. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ricky W. Campbell appeals from the district court’s order denying relief on his employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Campbell v. McAleenan, No. 3:17-cv-00707-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2019). 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 2
