Joseph Gilreath v. Cumberland County Board of Education, No. 15-1210 (4th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1210 JOSEPH GILREATH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant - Appellee, and THOMAS HATCH; MICHAEL BAIN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00627-BR) Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: January 5, 2016 Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Gilreath, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel William Clark, Adam S. Mitchell, THARRINGTON SMITH LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph against Gilreath his (“CCBE”), filed employer, pursuant to a disability Cumberland the discrimination County Americans with Board of action Education Disabilities Act, raising a failure to accommodate claim and a retaliation claim. He appeals the district court’s order granting CCBE’s motion for a directed verdict on his failure to accommodate claim, the jury verdict in favor of CCBE on his retaliation claim, and the district court’s order denying his various posttrial motions. We have reviewed the proceedings below, including the transcripts of the trial and the district court’s orders, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, reasons stated by the district court. we affirm for the Gilreath v. Cumberland Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 5:11-cv-00627-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 5, 2014; Nov. 7, 2014; Jan. 27, 2015). We further deny Gilreath’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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 2

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.