Anthony Parker v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation, No. 18-1400 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1400 ANTHONY PARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-00639-MOC-DCK) Submitted: August 31, 2018 Decided: September 21, 2018 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Robin Davis, Jason V. Federmack, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Parker appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his employment discrimination complaint. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the action and, contrary to the district court’s finding, that Parker exhausted his administrative remedies as to his race discrimination claim. However, his factual allegations were insufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Thus, we find no reversible error in the district court’s rejection of Parker’s race discrimination claim. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of relief on that claim. Because Parker’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition of the remaining claims, Parker has forfeited appellate review of those claims. 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.”). 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.
