Court Opinion

ID: 9881771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 21:00:44.662193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:17.804184
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2032      Doc: 11         Filed: 10/02/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2032

        REV. CARL A. MELVIN,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAMPTON-NEWPORT NEWS COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (4:19-cv-00069-RAJ-LRL)

        Submitted: September 28, 2023                                     Decided: October 2, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Carl A. Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia
        Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2032      Doc: 11         Filed: 10/02/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Carl A. Melvin appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for

        summary judgment on Melvin’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

        amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17, and dismissing without prejudice his state law

        claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

        the district court’s order. Melvin v. Hampton-Newport News Cmty. Servs. Bd., No.

        4:19-cv-00069-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2022). 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

                                                     2