Court Opinion

ID: 9405276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:00:59.749956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.765714
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2055      Doc: 30         Filed: 06/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2055

        JOHN WILLIAMS MILLER,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        APPLE, INC.,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00844-TMC)

        Submitted: June 22, 2023                                          Decided: June 26, 2023

        Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        John Williams Miller, Appellant Pro Se. William Harrell Foster, III, Katie Elizabeth
        Towery, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2055      Doc: 30        Filed: 06/26/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               John Williams Miller appeals the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendant summary judgment on

        Miller’s employment discrimination complaint. On appeal, Miller challenges the court’s

        prior order denying Miller’s motions for default judgment. We have reviewed the record

        and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Miller

        v. Apple, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00844-TMC (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2022). We deny Miller’s motion

        for default judgment. 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