Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-02033/USCOURTS-ca4-09-02033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shelia Boyd
Appellee
Howard Eisenhut
Appellee
Force Protection Industries Incorporated
Appellee
Helen Gearheard
Appellee
Vanessa Ladson
Appellee
Brenda Valentine
Appellee
Timothy Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2033

TIMOTHY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FORCE PROTECTION INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED; HOWARD EISENHUT, 

individually and as an employee of Force Protection 

Industries Incorporated; SHELIA BOYD, individually and as an 

employee of Force Protection Industries Incorporated; 

VANESSA LADSON, individually and as an employee of Force 

Protection Industries Incorporated; HELEN GEARHEARD, 

individually and as an employee of Force Protection 

Industries Incorporated; BRENDA VALENTINE, individually and 

as an employee of Force Protection Industries Incorporated,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District 

Judge. (2:07-cv-03679-MBS)

Submitted: April 7, 2010 Decided: April 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael D. Carrouth, FISHER 

& PHILLIPS, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Appeal: 09-2033 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/23/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-2033 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/23/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Williams appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

granting summary judgment to Defendants in this action alleging 

employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, as amended, and raising related claims under state 

law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Williams v. Force Protection Industries Inc., No. 2:07-

cv-03679-MBS (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2009). 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: 09-2033 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/23/2010 Pg: 3 of 3