Filed: Jan. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1885 HAROLD BOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MILLER PIPELINE, Defendant - Appellee, and CANDICE S. WALKER, Ogletree Deakins, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00278-FDW-DSC) Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1885 HAROLD BOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MILLER PIPELINE, Defendant - Appellee, and CANDICE S. WALKER, Ogletree Deakins, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00278-FDW-DSC) Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affir..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1885
HAROLD BOYD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MILLER PIPELINE,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
CANDICE S. WALKER, Ogletree Deakins,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00278-FDW-DSC)
Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Homer Bernard Tisdale, III, OGLETREE DEAKINS
NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harold Boyd appeals the district court’s order granting Miller Pipeline’s
dispositive motions and dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Boyd’s
employment discrimination suit, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Boyd v. Miller Pipeline, No. 3:16-cv-00278-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.
July 13, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2