Stanley Gardner v. Raymond Mabus, No. 15-1214 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1214 STANLEY GARDNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAYMOND EDWIN MABUS, JR., Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:14-cv-00352-AWA-TEM) Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 29, 2015 Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges. * Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Anthony Exley, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Wyneva Johnson, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: * The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2012). Stanley Gardner appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on Gardner’s employment discrimination claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e–17 (2012), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 to 796l (West 2008 & Supp. 2014), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2012). appeal, we confine Appellant’s brief. our review to the issues See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). raised in On the Because Gardner’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Gardner has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, although we grant Gardner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.