Gregory v. Potter

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1110
JEFFREY D. GREGORY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
POST MASTER JOHN POTTER, United States Postal Service; DANIEL T.
PIERCE; JONIE BLANTON; DAVID MILLS; DAVID VAN NORSTRAND,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
WAYNE SIGMON, for Jeffrey Dale Gregory and Sonya McAbee Gregory,
Trustee - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00142-LHT-DLH)
Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 29, 2008
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey D. Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,
United States Attorney, James Michael Sullivan, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; P. Wayne Sigmon, GRAY,
LAYTON, KERSH, SOLOMON, SIGMON, FURR & SMITH, PA, Gastonia, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey D. Gregory appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
his employment discrimination complaint based on his lack of
standing to pursue this action, which—due to his filing of a
petition in bankruptcy—belongs to his bankruptcy estate. See
Detrick v. Panalpina, Inc., 108 F.3d 529, 536 (4th Cir. 1997). We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We note,
however, that while Gregory does have standing to pursue his claim
that he was required to wear a training badge in February
2007—after the date of the filing of his bankruptcy petition—he
cannot state a claim on which relief could be granted on this
issue. See Harris v. Forklift Sys. Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993).
Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the
district court. Gregory v. Potter, No. 1:07-cv-00142-LHT-DLH
(W.D.N.C. Dec. 6, 2007). 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 -