Clarence Jenkins, Jr. v. SC Dept of Employment, No. 19-2037 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2037 CLARENCE B. JENKINS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT WORKFORCE; SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD; OFFICE OF SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Paige Jones Gossett, Magistrate Judge. (3:18-cv-01874-PJG) Submitted: July 22, 2020 Decided: August 10, 2020 Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence B. Jenkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth A. Davis, Tierney F. Dukes, BOYKIN & DAVIS, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clarence B. Jenkins, Jr., appeals the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his amended complaint alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2018). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2018). We have found no evidence supporting Jenkins’ assertion that the magistrate judge and Defendants engaged in misconduct during the proceedings. And because Jenkins’ opening informal brief does not challenge the grounds for the magistrate judge’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of those rulings. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); 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.”); United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 530 (4th Cir. 2013) (“[G]enerally we will not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order. * 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 * Although the magistrate judge dismissed some claims without prejudice, we have jurisdiction to consider Jenkins’ appeal. See Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 615 (4th Cir. 2020). 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.
