Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01037/USCOURTS-ca4-10-01037-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolina Power & Light Company
Appellee
Progress Energy Service Company, LLC

Albert Pressley Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1037

ALBERT PRESSLEY WILSON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, d/b/a Progress Energy 

Carolinas, Incorporated,

Defendant – Appellee, 

and 

PROGRESS ENERGY SERVICE COMPANY, LLC, 

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:05-cv-03597-TLW)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Pressley Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Zebulon Dyer 

Anderson, SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, 

LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, Appellee.

Appeal: 10-1037 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-1037 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Albert Pressley Wilson appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and 

dismissing Wilson’s civil complaint in which he asserted claims 

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006), the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (2006), and the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.

§§ 621 to 634 (2006) and denying reconsideration thereof. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Wilson v. Carolina Power & Light Co., No. 4:05-cv-03597-

TLW (D.S.C. Sept. 2, 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: 10-1037 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 3 of 3