Filed: Jun. 03, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2152 BERNARD SCARBOROUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WALMART CORPORATION, f/k/a Wal-Mart Super Center Stores, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00263-GCM) Submitted: May 24, 2011 Decided: June 3, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circui
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2152 BERNARD SCARBOROUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WALMART CORPORATION, f/k/a Wal-Mart Super Center Stores, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00263-GCM) Submitted: May 24, 2011 Decided: June 3, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2152 BERNARD SCARBOROUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WALMART CORPORATION, f/k/a Wal-Mart Super Center Stores, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00263-GCM) Submitted: May 24, 2011 Decided: June 3, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Scarborough, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Stephen Clarke, LITTLER MENDELSON, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bernard Scarborough appeals the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination and malicious prosecution action for failure to state a clam. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Scarborough v. Walmart Corp., No. 3:10-cv-00263-GCM (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2010). 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
