DocketNumber: 19-1536
Filed Date: 8/26/2019
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/26/2019
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1536 REINALDO OLAVARRIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROY COOPER, Governor; BARBARA GIBSON, Director of North Carolina Human Resources; MARK MARTIN, Chief Justice; CHARLTON A. ALLEN, Chair of the North Carolina Industrial Commission; ZACHARY PADGET; RANA BADWIN, in her Official Capacity; ALEXANDER WALTON, in his Official Capacity; ERIKA FRAZIER, in her Official Capacity; MANDY COHEN, NCDHHS Secretary, Defendants - Appellees, and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:17-cv-00590-D) Submitted: August 22, 2019 Decided: August 26, 2019 Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reinaldo Olavarria, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Reinaldo Olavarria appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss his federal complaint raising several constitutional and civil rights claims, including a discrimination claim brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & Supp. 2018) (Title VII). The district court dismissed Olavarria’s Title VII claim because Olavarria failed to plead that he adminstratively exhausted the claim. Soon after the district court granted Defendants’ motions, however, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Fort Bend Cty., Tx. v. Davis,139 S. Ct. 1843
, 1850 (2019), in which the Court held that Title VII’s charge-filing requirement is not jurisdictional. We thus vacate the district court’s order and remand for further consideration in light of Davis. 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. VACATED AND REMANDED 3