Filed: Nov. 18, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1578 MANUEL T. RUFFIN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-cv-00521-BO) Submitted: November 5, 2009 Decided: November 18, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Manuel T. Ruffin, Appellan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1578 MANUEL T. RUFFIN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-cv-00521-BO) Submitted: November 5, 2009 Decided: November 18, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Manuel T. Ruffin, Appellant..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1578 MANUEL T. RUFFIN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-cv-00521-BO) Submitted: November 5, 2009 Decided: November 18, 2009 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Manuel T. Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Manuel T. Ruffin appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Ruffin’s employment discrimination action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ruffin v. Dep’t of Corr., No. 5:08-cv-00521-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2009). 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
