Court Opinion

ID: 9378571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 21:00:38.986915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:22.221492
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1715      Doc: 24         Filed: 03/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1715

        JOHN H. STEVENS,

                            Plaintiff – Appellant,

                     v.

        CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND; MARK BELTON,

                            Defendants – Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:20-cv-03522-TDC)

        Submitted: February 9, 2023                                       Decided: March 9, 2023

        Before DIAZ and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: James M. Ray, II, RAY LEGAL GROUP, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for
        Appellant. Kevin Karpinski, E.I. Cornbrooks, IV, KARPINSKI, CORNBROOKS, &
        KARP, P.A., for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1715      Doc: 24         Filed: 03/09/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Plaintiff John H. Stevens sued his employer (Charles County, Maryland) and the

        county administrator for racial discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment

        in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. After the parties stipulated dismissal of the

        hostile work environment claims, the district court granted summary judgment for

        defendants on Stevens’ remaining claims. On appeal, Stevens challenges only the district

        court’s resolution of his retaliation claims. We review the grant of summary judgment de

        novo, construing all facts and reasonable inferences in favor of Stevens, the non-moving

        party. See Neal v. East Carolina Univ., 53 F.4th 130, 144 (4th Cir. 2022). Having done so

        and discerning no reversible error, we affirm. 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