Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01486/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01486-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1486

LARRY DAVIS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

WEISER SECURITY SERVICES, INC; NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL 

GUARD; RANDY POWELL; JAMES ROSES; JERRY BOWMAN; GUY 

MADERES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., 

District Judge. (3:13-cv-00522-MOC-DSC)

Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Ruth Dangel, OGLETREE 

DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina; 

Vanessa N. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1486 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Davis appeals from the district court’s judgment in 

Defendants’ favor on Davis’ racial harassment and discrimination 

claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). Davis 

also challenges the district court’s order granting Davis’ 

motion for reconsideration, but reaffirming the dismissal order. 

On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the 

Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Davis’ 

informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district 

court’s dispositive rulings, Davis has forfeited appellate 

review of the district court’s orders. See Williams v. Giant 

Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004); see also

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 

1999) (failure to raise issue in opening brief constitutes

abandonment of that issue). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s orders. See Davis v. Weiser Sec. Servs., Inc., No. 

3:13-cv-00522-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. filed Mar. 1, 2016, entered Mar. 

2, 2016; Mar. 31, 2016). 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

Appeal: 16-1486 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 2