Court Opinion

ID: 9405274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:00:57.944959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.895328
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2210      Doc: 19         Filed: 06/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2210

        JUPITER DENNELL WILSON, SR.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, in its official capacity,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cv-00486-MSD-RJK)

        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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jupiter Dennell Wilson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Ellen Frances Bergren, OFFICE OF THE
        CITY ATTORNEY, Chesapeake, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2210      Doc: 19         Filed: 06/26/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Jupiter Dennell Wilson, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders granting summary

        judgment in favor of the City of Chesapeake on Wilson’s discrimination and retaliation

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

        to 2000e-17, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621to 634, and

        denying Wilson’s postjudgment motions. Limiting our review of the record to the issues

        raised in Wilson’s informal brief, we find no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see

        also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an

        important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved

        in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. See Wilson v. City of

        Chesapeake, No. 2:19-cv-00486-MSD-RJK (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2022; Nov. 16, 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