Torrey Josey v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
This text of 566 F. App'x 209 (Torrey Josey v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.) 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.
Opinion
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Torrey Josey appeals the district court’s amended order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying Josey’s motion for default judgment, * the magistrate judge’s oral order *210 denying Josey’s motions for subpoenas, and the district court’s order adopting in part the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Josey’s employment discrimination, wrongful termination, and hostile work environment claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Josey leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Josey v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 0:11-02993-CMC, 2013 WL 5566035 (D.S.C. Apr. 9, 2012; filed July 18, 2012 & entered July 19, 2012; Oct. 8, 2013). 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.
Defendant argues that Josey did not effectively appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for default judgment and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. We conclude that, although Josey’s notice of appeal was technically deficient under Fed. R.App. P. 3(c), Defendant was on notice that Josey sought to appeal this order and will not *210 be prejudiced by our review of it. See Levald, Inc. v. City of Palm Desert, 998 F.2d 680, 691 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that, when appellant addresses the merits of an issue in his opening brief, this alone "is enough to demonstrate that the appellee had notice of the issue and did not suffer prejudice from the appellant’s failure to specify the order in the notice of appeal”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
566 F. App'x 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torrey-josey-v-wal-mart-stores-east-lp-ca4-2014.