Walter Slocum v. Patrick Donahoe, No. 11-1106 (4th Cir. 2011)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1106 WALTER J. SLOCUM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General of the United States, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:08-cv-03714-CMC) Submitted: October 25, 2011 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit November 15, 2011 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cornelius J. Sullivan, SULLIVAN & WALSH, Mattapan, Massachusetts, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Christie V. Newman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; David C. Belt, Acting Chief Counsel, Michael J. Elston, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Walter J. Slocum appeals the district court s order finding in favor of Defendant on Slocum s age discrimination claim. We error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district have reviewed court. Slocum (D.S.C. Jan. 4, 2011). the record v. and find No. Donahoe, no reversible 3:08-cv-03714-CMC Slocum also seeks to appeal the district court s previous order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Slocum s disability discrimination claim. However, because Slocum limited the scope of his notice of appeal to only the district court s order on Slocum s age discrimination claim, his appeal of the district disability discrimination court must Torres and court s claim is dismissed for Oakland v. be Scavenger Co., previous not lack 487 order properly of on the before this jurisdiction. See U.S. 312, 317 (1988) (requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 3 are jurisdictional). 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 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.