Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Garrett v. Diversified Industrial, 04-7217 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-7217 Visitors: 21
Filed: Apr. 15, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7217 BANORO GARRETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-04-426-2) Submitted: March 28, 2005 Decided: April 15, 2005 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Banor
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7217 BANORO GARRETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIAL CONCEPTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-04-426-2) Submitted: March 28, 2005 Decided: April 15, 2005 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Banoro Garrett, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Banoro Garrett appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his civil action filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17 (2000), and construed as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action by the district court. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no indication that Garrett intended his action to be filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or that it was appropriate to construe it as such. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with a Title VII complaint. We grant Garrett’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and deny his motion for appointment of counsel. 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. VACATED AND REMANDED - 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