UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1876

RONNIE CLARKE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

STEVEN ASHBY, (Former RBHA Executive Director); JOHN LINDSTROM, (Acting/Interim RBHA Executive Director); GALE PRICE, (Acting/Interim RBHA Human Resources Director); MICHAEL JOSEPH, (Current Director of RBHA's Financial/Administrative Division); JOHNNY BEATON, (Current Director of RBHA's IT/MIS Department); SAPHIRA BAKER; WAYNE BLANKS; LINDA K. CARR, Secretary*; TRACY L. CAUSEY; FRANCES M. CHRISTIAN, Ph. D., Vice Chairperson; MARGARET N. CROWE, Chairperson; ANDREW C. EPPS, III; MARILYN T. ERICKSON, Ph. D.; SANDRA FOWLER-JONES; DELORES MCQUINN; MARTHA MUGUIRA, Ed.D.; NAPLEON L. PEOPLES; ROSE STITH-SINGLETON, M.Ed; RICHMOND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AUTHORITY,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

H. GRAY WYATT, Treasurer; EUGENE MASON; BLAIR LARCEN; MICHAEL PARKER, (Former RBHA Human Resources Director); LISA M. HARRISON, CPA, Mtax,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00574-REP)

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa H. Leiner, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Ronnie Clarke appeals the district court's order

dismissing his claims against Defendants alleging violations of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), and

, 1983 (2000),

as well as several other federal and state law claims. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny Clarke’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, deny

his self-styled "motion to grant summary judgment,” and affirm

the district court’s order. See Clarke v. Ashby, No. 3:07-cv-

00574-REP (E.D. Va. July 8, 2008). 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

3