Court Opinion

ID: 9367803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 21:00:34.887616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:03.365092
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1709      Doc: 22         Filed: 01/31/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1709

        INAM NAJI,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        FLUOR FEDERAL SERVICES, LLC,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:19-cv-01774-HMH)

        Submitted: December 30, 2022                                      Decided: January 31, 2023

        Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Inam Naji, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Lee Sease Cluverius, Ashley Robertson Parr,
        Greenville, South Carolina, Susan Pedrick McWilliams, NEXSEN PRUET, LLC,
        Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1709         Doc: 22    Filed: 01/31/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Inam Naji appeals the district court’s order granting a directed verdict for Fluor

        Federal Services, LLC, (Fluor) on Naji’s retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil

        Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e to 2000e-17, and the court’s order

        granting summary judgment to Fluor on Naji’s discrimination claims. We have reviewed

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

        judgment. Naji v. Fluor Fed. Servs., LLC, No. 6:19-cv-01774-HMH (D.S.C. June 4,

        2021). 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