Court Opinion

ID: 9951386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 21:00:43.795296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:59.439581
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2173      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/14/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-2173

        MARCUS SMITH,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        LOWES COMPANIES, INC.,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:21-cv-00034-RJC-SCR)

        Submitted: March 12, 2024                                         Decided: March 14, 2024

        Before GREGORY, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marcus Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Manos, Frederick Thomas Smith, SEYFARTH
        SHAW, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2173      Doc: 10         Filed: 03/14/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marcus Smith appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

        the magistrate judge and dismissing Smith’s complaint for failure to timely exhaust

        administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. *

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Smith v. Lowes Cos., No. 3:21-cv-

        000034-RJC-SCR (W.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 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

               *
                To the extent Smith seeks to supplement the record on appeal, we decline to
        consider evidence that was not presented to the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a);
        United States v. Redd, 85 F.4th 153, 168 n.13 (4th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he proper setting for
        developing the record is in the district court, not this Court in the first instance.”).

                                                    2