Court Opinion

ID: 9384149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 21:01:22.059674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:51.002121
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1624      Doc: 14         Filed: 03/30/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1624

        JAMES THOMAS MARTIN, JR.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        TOWN OF SUMMERVILLE; NANCY SUMERSETT,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00774-RMG)

        Submitted: January 31, 2023                                       Decided: March 30, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        James Thomas Martin, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Drew Hamilton Butler, Charleston, South
        Carolina, Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA,
        Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1624      Doc: 14        Filed: 03/30/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              James Thomas Martin, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’

        motion for summary judgment on Martin’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title II of

        the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. We have reviewed the record and find

        no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Martin v. Town of

        Summerville, No. 2:19-cv-00774-RMG (D.S.C. May 21, 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