Theodore Berry v. Coastal International Securit

D.C. Circuit

Theodore Berry v. Coastal International Securit

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedAugust 22, 2016

Docket16-7043

StatusPublished

This text of Theodore Berry v. Coastal International Securit (Theodore Berry v. Coastal International Securit) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Theodore Berry v. Coastal International Securit, (D.C. Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 16-7043 September Term, 2015 1:12-cv-01420-ABJ Filed On: August 22, 2016 Theodore Berry,

Appellant

v.

Coastal International Security, Inc.,

Appellee

BEFORE: Tatel, Srinivasan, and Millett, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). With respect to appellant’s discrimination claims, the court properly determined appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that appellee’s asserted non-discriminatory reason was not the actual reason for its personnel actions and that appellee intentionally discriminated against appellant. See Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The same is true of appellant’s retaliation claims: appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the actions about which he complains were taken in retaliation for protected activity. See Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 677 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Finally, although appellant argues his district court counsel was ineffective, appellant is bound by his attorney’s actions, see Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 396 (1993), and counsel’s deficient performance is not a ground for relief in a civil employment discrimination case, cf. Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (inmate civil rights case); MacCuish v. United States, 844 F.2d 733, 735-736 (10th Cir. 1988) (medical malpractice case). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 16-7043 September Term, 2015

The Clerk is directed to publish this order. The Clerk is further directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/ Michael C. McGrail Deputy Clerk

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

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 16-7043 September Term, 2015 1:12-cv-01420-ABJ Filed On: August 22, 2016 Theodore Berry,

Appellant

v.

Coastal International Security, Inc.,

Appellee

BEFORE: Tatel, Srinivasan, and Millett, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). With respect to appellant’s discrimination claims, the court properly determined appellant failed to produce sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that appellee’s asserted non-discriminatory reason was not the actual reason for its personnel actions and that appellee intentionally discriminated against appellant. See Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The same is true of appellant’s retaliation claims: appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the actions about which he complains were taken in retaliation for protected activity. See Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670, 677 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Finally, although appellant argues his district court counsel was ineffective, appellant is bound by his attorney’s actions, see Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 396 (1993), and counsel’s deficient performance is not a ground for relief in a civil employment discrimination case, cf. Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (inmate civil rights case); MacCuish v. United States, 844 F.2d 733, 735-736 (10th Cir. 1988) (medical malpractice case). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 16-7043 September Term, 2015

The Clerk is directed to publish this order. The Clerk is further directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/ Michael C. McGrail Deputy Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Theodore Berry v. Coastal International Securit, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/theodore-berry-v-coastal-international-securit-cadc-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack