Summary
concluding "district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action" even though district court indicated it lacked jurisdiction because plaintiff sued the wrong defendant
Summary of this case from J.C. v. Fairfax Cnty. Pub. Schs.Opinion
No. 18-1400
09-21-2018
ANTHONY PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee.
Anthony Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Robin Davis, Jason V. Federmack, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-00639-MOC-DCK) Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Robin Davis, Jason V. Federmack, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Anthony Parker appeals the district court's order denying relief on his employment discrimination complaint. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action and, contrary to the district court's finding, that Parker exhausted his administrative remedies as to his race discrimination claim. However, his factual allegations were insufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Thus, we find no reversible error in the district court's rejection of Parker's race discrimination claim. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief on that claim. Because Parker's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition of the remaining claims, Parker has forfeited appellate review of those claims. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ("The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief."). 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