Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01197/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01197-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-1197

ROBERT LEON STRICKLAND, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

J. FRANK BAKER, Superintendent Sumter School District Two; 

ZONA JEFFERSON, Superintendent Sumter School District 17; 

SHARON TEIGUE, Director Sumter Career Readiness Center 

Sumter County Career Center; GREGORY JONES, Assistant 

Director Sumter Career Readiness Center Sumter County Career 

Center; STUART LIDDELL; LARRY ADDISON, Chairman Sumter 

County School District Two Board of Trustees,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:08-cv-02721-CMC)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Leon Strickland, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Meredith Lee 

Seibert, Andrea E. White, DUFF, WHITE & TURNER, LLC, Columbia, 

South Carolina; Charles J. Boykin, Stephanie Nicole Lawrence, 

BOYKIN & DAVIS, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1197 Doc: 18 Filed: 04/27/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Strickland, Jr., appeals from the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and granting summary judgment in favor of his former 

employer and dismissing his employment discrimination and 

retaliation action. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Strickland v. Baker, No. 3:08-cv-02721-

CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 12, 2010). 

Strickland also appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e). Finding no abuse of the district court’s discretion, we 

likewise affirm that order on the reasoning of the district 

court. Strickland v. Baker, No. 3:08-cv-02721-CMC (D.S.C. Feb. 

11, 2010). See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 

F.3d 396, 402 (4th Cir. 1998).

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

Appeal: 10-1197 Doc: 18 Filed: 04/27/2010 Pg: 2 of 2