Adams v. High Purity Systems, Inc. ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-1849
    BARRY ADAMS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    HIGH PURITY SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; NORMAN JONES,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (1:09-cv-00354-GBL-JFA)
    Submitted:   May 21, 2010                     Decided:   June 9, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Barry Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Anessa Abrams, SAUL EWING, LLP,
    Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Barry     Adams       appeals       the   district     court’s       order
    granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss his federal employment
    discrimination and state tort law claims pursuant to Federal
    Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).                     We have reviewed the record
    and     find     no     reversible        error.          Accordingly,     we     affirm
    substantially on the reasoning of the district court.                           Adams v.
    High    Purity    Sys.,        Inc.,    No.    1:09-cv-00354-GBL-JFA        (E.D.    Va.
    June 5, 2009; July 2, 2009).                  With regard to Adams’ reverse race
    discrimination claim, we find that Adams failed to allege that
    he was treated less favorably than others outside his protected
    class; thus, this claim was insufficiently pled.                       See McDonnell
    Douglas Corp. v. Green, 
    411 U.S. 792
    , 802 (1973); White v. BFI
    Waste    Servs.,       LLC,    
    375 F.3d 288
    ,   295   (4th   Cir.    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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-1849

Judges: Niemeyer, King, Hamilton

Filed Date: 6/9/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024