Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01210/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01210-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1210

JOSEPH GILREATH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

THOMAS HATCH; MICHAEL BAIN,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (5:11-cv-00627-BR)

Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: January 5, 2016

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Gilreath, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel William Clark, Adam 

S. Mitchell, THARRINGTON SMITH LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1210 Doc: 34 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Gilreath filed a disability discrimination action 

against his employer, Cumberland County Board of Education 

(“CCBE”), pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

raising a failure to accommodate claim and a retaliation claim. 

He appeals the district court’s order granting CCBE’s motion for 

a directed verdict on his failure to accommodate claim, the jury 

verdict in favor of CCBE on his retaliation claim, and the 

district court’s order denying his various posttrial motions. 

We have reviewed the proceedings below, including the

transcripts of the trial and the district court’s orders, and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Gilreath v. Cumberland 

Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 5:11-cv-00627-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 5, 2014; 

Nov. 7, 2014; Jan. 27, 2015). We further deny Gilreath’s motion 

for the appointment of counsel. 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: 15-1210 Doc: 34 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pg: 2 of 2