Lonnie B. Barbee v. Isothermal Community College

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2182
LONNIE B. BARBEE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ISOTHERMAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE; RUSSELL WICKER; DAVID
LIBERA; THAD HARRILL; STEPHEN MATHENY; WALTER DALTON;
SALONIA THORN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00267-MR-WCM)
Submitted: December 6, 2021 Decided: January 19, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lonnie B. Barbee, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Gilley, Brian N. McCracken, FORD &
HARRISON LLP, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Lonnie B. Barbee appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. On appeal,
we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Construing his informal brief liberally, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(stating that pro se filings should be liberally construed), Barbee challenges only the district
court’s disposition of his wrongful termination age discrimination claim. Because Barbee
does not challenge the bases for the district court’s disposition of his other claims, he has
forfeited appellate review of all other claims. See 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.”).
We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo. See
Seremeth v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs Frederick Cnty., 673 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012). Our
review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not err in denying
Barbee’s age discrimination claim. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of that claim for the
reasons stated by the district court. Barbee v. Isothermal Cmty. Coll., No. 1:18-cv-00267-
MR-WCM (W.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2020). We deny Barbee’s request for appointment of
counsel and 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 of 2 --