Stukes v. Chertoff

Fourth Circuit

Stukes v. Chertoff

332 F. App'x 816

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 1, 2009

DocketNo. 09-6249

StatusPublished

This text of 332 F. App'x 816 (Stukes v. Chertoff) 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

Stukes v. Chertoff, 332 F. App'x 816 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Voncille O. Stakes appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on Stakes’ claims of race and disability discrimination and retaliation, and denying reconsideration of that order. With respect to the district court’s order denying reconsideration, Stakes has failed to challenge that order on appeal and, therefore, has forfeited appellate review of that order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). With respect to the district court’s order granting summai’y judgment in favor of the Appellee, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stukes v. Chertoff, No. 3:06-cv-00316-MR-CH, 2008 WL 5170182 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 9, 2008). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Voncille O. Stakes appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on Stakes’ claims of race and disability discrimination and retaliation, and denying reconsideration of that order. With respect to the district court’s order denying reconsideration, Stakes has failed to challenge that order on appeal and, therefore, has forfeited appellate review of that order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). With respect to the district court’s order granting summai’y judgment in favor of the Appellee, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stukes v. Chertoff, No. 3:06-cv-00316-MR-CH, 2008 WL 5170182 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 9, 2008). 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)

332 F. App'x 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stukes-v-chertoff-ca4-2009.