Filed: Nov. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1727 RONNIE CLARKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL AUTHORITY; CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER; CURRENT HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR; CURRENT CHAIRPERSON OF RBHA EXECUTIVE BOARD AND CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00861-REP) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Deci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1727 RONNIE CLARKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL AUTHORITY; CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER; CURRENT HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR; CURRENT CHAIRPERSON OF RBHA EXECUTIVE BOARD AND CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00861-REP) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decid..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1727 RONNIE CLARKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL AUTHORITY; CURRENT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER; CURRENT HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR; CURRENT CHAIRPERSON OF RBHA EXECUTIVE BOARD AND CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:10-cv-00861-REP) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie Clarke appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims against Defendants alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Clarke v. Richmond Behavioral Auth., No. 3:10-cv-00861-REP (E.D. Va. May 7, 2012). 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