Filed: Dec. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1695 ROBERT W. HARRIS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00427-REP) Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Jud
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1695 ROBERT W. HARRIS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00427-REP) Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judg..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1695
ROBERT W. HARRIS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General, United States
Postal Service,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00427-REP)
Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert W. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert W. Harris appeals the district court’s order
dismissing this action alleging employment discrimination for
failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). After de
novo review, see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007), we conclude that dismissal was proper. Even with a
liberal construction of the complaint, we find that Harris’
unintelligible factual allegations were insufficient to give
rise to an inference of liability and that his claims for relief
were largely unintelligible. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S.
662, 679 (2009); Giarrantano v. Johnson,
521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th
Cir. 2015). We accordingly affirm. 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