Tajudin Jarallah v. Warren Thompson , 627 F. App'x 185 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2052
TAJUDIN JARALLAH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARREN THOMPSON; JILL BROWN; MAURICE JENOURE; DINA ZAIKOUK;
DAN KELLY; MAJID ZAGHARI; FRANKLIN SORUCO; ERIK ROBINSON;
TIFFANY BLAKNEY; BOWIE STATE UNIVERSITY; MORGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY; PRINCE GEORGE’S COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-01772-DKC)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tajudin Jarallah, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Patrick Dowd,
LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Washington, DC; Corlie McCormick, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Thomas Faulk,
Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland; Vincent Daniel
Palumbo, Jr., PALUMBO LAW GROUP, LLC, Fort Washington, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Tajudin Jarallah appeals the district court’s order
entering judgment in Defendants’ favor on Jarallah’s civil
claims against Defendants, including his claims under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e
to 2000e-17 (2012) (“Title VII”). We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Jarallah’s
motion to file an informal supplemental brief and we affirm the
district court’s order. * Jarallah v. Thompson, No. 8:14-cv-
01772-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 17, 2015). 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 district court did not apply the hybrid test
for determining Title VII joint employment, see Butler v. Drive
Auto. Indus., 793 F.3d 404, 408-10, 414-15 (4th Cir. 2015), the
record confirms the district court’s conclusion that the
institutional Defendants were not Jarallah’s “employer” under
Title VII.
3