Larry Davis v. Weiser Security Services, Inc, No. 16-1486 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1486 LARRY DAVIS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WEISER SECURITY SERVICES, INC; NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL GUARD; RANDY POWELL; JAMES ROSES; JERRY BOWMAN; GUY MADERES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00522-MOC-DSC) Submitted: August 18, 2016 Decided: August 22, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Ruth Dangel, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Vanessa N. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Larry Davis appeals from the district court’s judgment in Defendants’ favor on Davis’ racial harassment and discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2012). also challenges the district court’s order granting Davis Davis’ motion for reconsideration, but reaffirming the dismissal order. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Davis’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s dispositive rulings, Davis has review of the district court’s orders. forfeited appellate See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004); see also Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (failure to raise issue abandonment of that issue). court’s orders. in opening brief constitutes Accordingly, we affirm the district See Davis v. Weiser Sec. Servs., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00522-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. filed Mar. 1, 2016, entered Mar. 2, 2016; Mar. 31, 2016). 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.