Nivilla Campbell v. City of Shelby ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1370 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1370
NIVILLA ROCKEE CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SHELBY, NC; RICK HOWELL, in his Individual and Official capacity,
City Manager for the City of Shelby, North Carolina; JULIE MCMURRAY, in her
Individual and Official capacity, Director of Energy Services for the City of Shelby,
North Carolina; SCOTT HUFFSTETLER, in his Individual and Official capacity,
Natural Gas Supervisor for the City of Shelby, North Carolina,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00629-FDW-DCK)
Submitted: March 21, 2023 Decided: March 23, 2023
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nivilla Rockee Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Bader, Raleigh, North
Carolina, Patrick Houghton Flanagan, CRANFILL SUMNER, LLP, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1370 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Nivilla Rockee Campbell appeals the district court’s order granting summary
judgment to Defendants on Campbell’s race discrimination and retaliation claims under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17. Limiting our
review of the record to the issues raised in Campbell’s informal brief, we find no reversible
error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. Campbell v. City of Shelby, N.C., No. 3:20-cv-00629-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.
Mar. 4, 2022). 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
2