Case Name: Harold BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Miller PIPELINE, Defendant-Appellee, and Candice S. Walker, Ogletree Deakins, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-22
Citations: 709 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: No. 17-1885
Parties: Harold BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Miller PIPELINE, Defendant-Appellee, and Candice S. Walker, Ogletree Deakins, Defendant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 205–206

Head Matter:
Harold BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Miller PIPELINE, Defendant-Appellee, and Candice S. Walker, Ogletree Deakins, Defendant.
No. 17-1885
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 18, 2018
Decided: January 22, 2018
Harold Boyd, Appellant Pro Se, Homer Bernard Tisdale, III, OGLETREE DEA-KINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harold Boyd appeals the district court's order granting Miller Pipeline's dispositive motions and dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Boyd's employment discrimination suit, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Boyd v. Miller Pipeline, No. 3:16-cv-00278-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. July 13, 2017). 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