Court Opinion

ID: 9396904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:55.939465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.353074
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2031       Doc: 16        Filed: 05/22/2023      Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-2031

        DWANE D. HEYWARD,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        CARETEAM PLUS, INC.,

                             Defendant - Appellee,

                      and

        JOHANNA HAYNES,

                             Defendant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
        Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (4:21-cv-00754-JD)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                            Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Dwane D. Heyward, Appellant Pro Se. Cherie Wilson Blackburn, Mary Stuart King,
        MAYNARD NEXSEN, PC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2031         Doc: 16     Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Dwane D. Heyward appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation and granting Careteam Plus, Inc., summary judgment on

        Heyward’s discriminatory discharge and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII

        of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. We have reviewed the

        record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

        district court. Heyward v. Careteam Plus, Inc., No. 4:21-cv-00754-JD (D.S.C. Sept. 8,

        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