Robert Brayboy v. Robeson County Board of Educat, No. 10-1201 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1201 ROBERT BRAYBOY, Plaintiff Appellant, v. ROBESON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00204-H) Submitted: November 18, 2010 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 24, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Brayboy, Appellant Pro Se. Curtis Hudson Allen, III, Deborah R. Stagner, THARRINGTON & SMITH, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert judgment in Brayboy Defendant s appeals favor from on the his district racial court s harassment and discrimination and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2003 & Supp. 2010), and his disability harassment claim, brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213 (West 2005 & Supp. 2010). to address disposing the of his In his informal brief, Brayboy fails district claims review of those rulings. court s and, dispositive thus, has reasons forfeited for appellate See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to issues raised in the informal brief); see also Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (failure to raise issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. See Brayboy v. Robeson County Bd. of Educ., No. 7:07- cv-00204-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2010). We dispense 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 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.