Case ID: f-appx_310/html/0609-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Darryl E. WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF ZEBULON; Town of Zebulon Police Department; Robert Matheny; Tim Hayworth; Michael McGlothlin; Scott Finch, Defendants—Appellees, and John Doe Insurance Company, Defendant.
    No. 08-1366.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 27, 2009.
    Decided: Feb. 6, 2009.
    Angela Newell Gray, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Victoria A. Street, Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darryl E. Wright appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment and dismissing his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (2000), and North Carolina state law. This court reviews a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir.2007), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1483, 170 L.Ed.2d 297 (2008). Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wright v. Town of Zebulon, No. 4:06-cv-00218-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 26, 2008). 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.