Clarence B. Jenkins, Jr. v. Office of South Carolina Governor

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1968
CLARENCE B. JENKINS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
OFFICE OF SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR; SOUTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION; SOUTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL; SOUTH CAROLINA HUMAN AFFAIRS
COMMISSION; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT
WORKFORCE; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY;
RICHLAND COUNTY, Government; SOUTH CAROLINA SECRETARY OF
STATE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (3:23-cv-04593-JDA)
Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 27, 2025
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence B. Jenkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Clarence B. Jenkins, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate
judge’s reports and recommendations and dismissing Jenkins’s amended complaint
alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”),
29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. Jenkins also appeals the district court’s order denying his motion
for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
We conclude that the district court correctly granted the South Carolina Department
of Employment Workforce’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(c). Jenkins’s ADEA claim is barred by sovereign immunity. McCray v. Md. Dep’t
of Transp., 741 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. 2014). And his Title VII claims are not plausible.
After being accorded an opportunity to amend his complaint, Jenkins alleged no facts
suggesting that race was a motivating factor for—or that his protected activity was a but-
for cause of—his nonselection for an interview. See McCleary-Evans v. Md. Dep’t of
Transp., 780 F.3d 582, 584-86 (4th Cir. 2015) (Title VII pleading standard). We further
conclude that the district court correctly dismissed the claims against the remaining
Defendants without prejudice and without service of process. Title VII and the ADEA
prohibit unlawful employment practices by employers or potential employers, and Jenkins
did not allege that he applied for any positions with the remaining Defendants. See
29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Finally, we reject Jenkins’s baseless
assertion on appeal that the district court judge and the magistrate judge engaged in
corruption and other misconduct.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Jenkins v. Off. of S.C.
Governor, No. 3:23-cv-04593-JDA (D.S.C. Aug. 27 & Oct. 3, 2024). 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

-- 3 of 3 --