Clarke v. Ashby ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1876
RONNIE CLARKE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
STEVEN ASHBY, (Former RBHA Executive Director); JOHN
LINDSTROM, (Acting/Interim RBHA Executive Director); GALE
PRICE, (Acting/Interim RBHA Human Resources Director);
MICHAEL JOSEPH, (Current Director of RBHA's
Financial/Administrative Division); JOHNNY BEATON, (Current
Director of RBHA's IT/MIS Department); SAPHIRA BAKER; WAYNE
BLANKS; LINDA K. CARR, Secretary*; TRACY L. CAUSEY; FRANCES
M. CHRISTIAN, Ph. D., Vice Chairperson; MARGARET N. CROWE,
Chairperson; ANDREW C. EPPS, III; MARILYN T. ERICKSON, Ph.
D.; SANDRA FOWLER-JONES; DELORES MCQUINN; MARTHA MUGUIRA,
Ed.D.; NAPLEON L. PEOPLES; ROSE STITH-SINGLETON, M.Ed;
RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AUTHORITY,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
H. GRAY WYATT, Treasurer; EUGENE MASON; BLAIR LARCEN;
MICHAEL PARKER, (Former RBHA Human Resources Director); LISA
M. HARRISON, CPA, Mtax,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cv-00574-REP)
Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN,
CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie Clarke appeals the district court's order
dismissing his claims against Defendants alleging violations of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (2000),
as well as several other federal and state law claims. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we deny Clarke’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, deny
his self-styled "motion to grant summary judgment,” and affirm
the district court’s order. See Clarke v. Ashby, No. 3:07-cv-
00574-REP (E.D. Va. July 8, 2008). 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
3