John Stevens v. Charles County, Maryland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 9, 2023
• Docket: 22-1715
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1715 Doc: 24 Filed: 03/09/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1715

JOHN H. STEVENS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND; MARK BELTON,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:20-cv-03522-TDC)

Submitted: February 9, 2023 Decided: March 9, 2023

Before DIAZ and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: James M. Ray, II, RAY LEGAL GROUP, LLC, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Kevin Karpinski, E.I. Cornbrooks, IV, KARPINSKI, CORNBROOKS, & KARP, P.A., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1715 Doc: 24 Filed: 03/09/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff John H. Stevens sued his employer (Charles County, Maryland) and the

county administrator for racial discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment

in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. After the parties stipulated dismissal of the

hostile work environment claims, the district court granted summary judgment for

defendants on Stevens’ remaining claims. On appeal, Stevens challenges only the district

court’s resolution of his retaliation claims. We review the grant of summary judgment de

novo, construing all facts and reasonable inferences in favor of Stevens, the non-moving

party. See Neal v. East Carolina Univ., 53 F.4th 130, 144 (4th Cir. 2022). Having done so

and discerning no reversible error, we affirm. 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