Court Opinion

ID: 9411519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:01:18.597732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.262387
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1423      Doc: 10         Filed: 07/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1423

        KENTRELL A. GIBBS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        MIRACLES IN SIGHT,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00976-CCE-LPA)

        Submitted: July 20, 2023                                          Decided: July 25, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kentrell A. Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. Jose Rodrigo Pocasangre, Jill S. Stricklin,
        CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1423      Doc: 10        Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kentrell A. Gibbs appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant Miracles In

        Sight’s motions for sanctions and for summary judgment in Gibbs’ race discrimination

        action, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e

        to 2000e-17. Upon review of the record, we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we

        affirm the district court’s order. Gibbs v. Miracles In Sight, No. 1:21-cv-00976-CCE-LPA

        (M.D.N.C. Mar. 22, 2023). 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