Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Moore v. New Hanover County Gov, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Jackson Moore appealed a magistrate judge's order denying relief on Moore's complaint against New Hanover County Government and others alleging violations of Title VII, Sections 1981 and 1985 of the Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the magistrate judge's opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-03-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-2185

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Jackson Moore appealed a magistrate judge's order denying relief on Moore's complaint against New Hanover County Government and others alleging violations of Title VII, Sections 1981 and 1985 of the Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the magistrate judge's opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views2 pages

    Moore v. New Hanover County Gov, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Jackson Moore appealed a magistrate judge's order denying relief on Moore's complaint against New Hanover County Government and others alleging violations of Title VII, Sections 1981 and 1985 of the Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the magistrate judge's opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-2185

    JACKSON MOORE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    NEW
    HANOVER
    COUNTY
    GOVERNMENT;
    COUNTY
    COMMISSIONERS; COUNTY MANAGER; HUMAN RELATIONS
    COMMISSION; CARL A. BYRD; JOHN DAVIS; CYNTHIA
    STEVENS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
    Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-195-DEV)

    Submitted:

    February 24, 2005

    Decided:

    March 4, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jackson Moore, Appellant Pro Se.


    Edwin Holt Moore, III, NEW
    HANOVER COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE, Wilmington, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Jackson
    denying

    relief

    on

    Moore

    appeals

    his

    complaint

    the

    magistrate

    filed

    pursuant

    judges
    to

    42

    order*
    U.S.C.

    2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) (Title VII); 42 U.S.C. 1981 and


    1985

    (2000);

    Clause.

    and

    the

    Fourteenth

    Amendments

    Equal

    Protection

    We have reviewed the record and the district courts

    opinion and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on

    the reasoning of the district court.

    See Moore v. New Hanover

    County Govt, No. CA-03-195-DEV (E.D.N.C. Aug. 13, 2004).

    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

    The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate


    judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (2000).
    - 2 -

    You might also like