Case Name: Karl G. BYRD, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BALTIMORE SUN COMPANY; Baltimore Graphic Communications Union # 31, Defendants-Appellees, and Robert Stallings, President, Baltimore Graphic Communications Union # 31, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-08-30
Citations: 43 F. App'x 702
Docket Number: No. 01-2054
Parties: Karl G. BYRD, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BALTIMORE SUN COMPANY; Baltimore Graphic Communications Union # 31, Defendants-Appellees, and Robert Stallings, President, Baltimore Graphic Communications Union # 31, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 43
Pages: 702–703

Head Matter:
Karl G. BYRD, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BALTIMORE SUN COMPANY; Baltimore Graphic Communications Union # 31, Defendants-Appellees, and Robert Stallings, President, Baltimore Graphic Communications Union # 31, Defendant.
No. 01-2054.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2002.
Decided Aug. 30, 2002.
Ralph T. Byrd, Laytonsville, Maryland, for Appellant. Charles Lamasa, Baltimore, Maryland; Howard K. Kurman, Of-fit, Kurman & Alms, P.A., Owings Mills, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Karl G. Byrd, Sr., appeals from the dismissal of his employment discrimination complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court found that Byrd failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish a prima facie discrimination claim in his complaint. On appeal, Byrd argues he is not required to plead a prima facie case in his complaint, and instead must merely comply with the liberal pleading standards found in Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). He relies on a recent case, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002), which stands for that proposition. The district court did not have the benefit of Swierkiemcz's reasoning. Therefore, we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with that decision. Our decision renders moot Byrd's motion for summary disposition, so we deny that motion. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED.