Darryl Wright v. Town of Zebulon, No. 08-1366 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1366 DARRYL E. WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TOWN OF ZEBULON; TOWN OF ZEBULON POLICE DEPARTMENT; ROBERT MATHENY; TIM HAYWORTH; MICHAEL MCGLOTHLIN; SCOTT FINCH, Defendants - Appellees, and JOHN DOE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:06-cv-00218-BO) Submitted: January 27, 2009 Decided: February 6, 2009 Before MICHAEL and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angela Newell Gray, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Victoria A. Street, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Darryl E. Wright appeals the district court s order granting summary judgment and dismissing his claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) ( Title VII ), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (2000), and North Carolina state law. district court s order granting This court reviews a summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the Doe v. Kidd, 501 F.3d 348, 353 (4th Cir. non-moving party. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1483 (2008). is proper if the pleadings, the Summary judgment discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wright (E.D.N.C. Feb. v. 26, Town 2008). of Zebulon, We dispense No. 4:06-cv-00218-BO 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 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.