Robinson v. City of Greenville

Fourth Circuit

Robinson v. City of Greenville

122 F. App'x 76

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 2005

DocketNo. 04-1844

StatusPublished

This text of 122 F. App'x 76 (Robinson v. City of Greenville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robinson v. City of Greenville, 122 F. App'x 76 (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

William G. Robinson appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary judgment in favor of his employer and a former supervisor on his claims alleging race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000), retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (2000), and violations of his constitutional rights to equal protection and free speech in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court and the magistrate judge. See Robinson v. City of Greenville, No. CA-02-2533-26BI (D.S.C. Apr. 23, 2004 and May 26, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

William G. Robinson appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary judgment in favor of his employer and a former supervisor on his claims alleging race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000), retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (2000), and violations of his constitutional rights to equal protection and free speech in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court and the magistrate judge. See Robinson v. City of Greenville, No. CA-02-2533-26BI (D.S.C. Apr. 23, 2004 and May 26, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 F. App'x 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-city-of-greenville-ca4-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack