Melvin Bryant v. Charlotte Eye Ear Nose Throat, No. 20-1571 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1571 MELVIN G. BRYANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLOTTE EYE EAR NOSE & THROAT ASSOCIATES, PA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. David C. Keesler, Magistrate Judge. (3:18-cv-00381-DCK) Submitted: July 21, 2020 Decided: July 23, 2020 Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. 1 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin G. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Ruth Gift, Benjamin R. Holland, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 1 (2018). The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) PER CURIAM: Melvin G. Bryant appeals the magistrate judge’s 2 order granting Defendant summary judgment on Bryant’s employment discrimination claims, which were brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2018), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2018). On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because the informal brief does not challenge the basis for the magistrate judge’s dispositive holdings, Bryant has forfeited appellate review of the judge’s disposition. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in Defendant’s favor. 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 The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2018). 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.