Case ID: f-appx_452/html/0395-01.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

Larry J. RUSSELL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERRILL LYNCH, INC.; Evans Neville; Frank Azzarita; Darby Henley, Jr.; Christopher Davis, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-1641.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 19, 2011.
    Decided: Nov. 1, 2011.
    Larry J. Russell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Audrey Y. Dupont, Carole Golinski Miller, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, Birmingham, Alabama; James Marion Powell, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry J. Russell, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment on his employment discrimination claims, ordering the payment of attorney’s fees, and denying his various motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Russell v. Merrill Lynch, No. 1:09-cv-00534-WO-PTS (M.D.N.C. Dec. 10, 2009; Feb. 1, 2010; July 7, 2010; Mar. 31, 2011; Apr. 29, 2011). 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. 
      
       Although Russell’s notice of appeal designates an appeal from only the district court’s March 31, 2011 order, his intent to appeal the district court’s various other orders is clear and Merrill Lynch is not prejudiced by his mistaken omissions. See Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir.2005).