Robert Strickland, Jr. v. J. Baker, No. 10-1197 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1197 ROBERT LEON STRICKLAND, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. J. FRANK BAKER, Superintendent Sumter School District Two; ZONA JEFFERSON, Superintendent Sumter School District 17; SHARON TEIGUE, Director Sumter Career Readiness Center Sumter County Career Center; GREGORY JONES, Assistant Director Sumter Career Readiness Center Sumter County Career Center; STUART LIDDELL; LARRY ADDISON, Chairman Sumter County School District Two Board of Trustees, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:08-cv-02721-CMC) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Leon Strickland, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Meredith Lee Seibert, Andrea E. White, DUFF, WHITE & TURNER, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina; Charles J. Boykin, Stephanie Nicole Lawrence, BOYKIN & DAVIS, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert court s judge order and Strickland, accepting granting employer and the retaliation action. appeals from recommendation summary dismissing reversible error. Jr., judgment his in of the favor employment the of district magistrate his former discrimination and We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Strickland v. Baker, No. 3:08-cv-02721- CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 12, 2010). Strickland also appeals the district court s order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Finding no abuse of the district court s discretion, we likewise affirm that order on the reasoning of the district court. Strickland v. Baker, No. 3:08-cv-02721-CMC (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 2010). See Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 402 (4th Cir. 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
