USCA4 Appeal: 24-1968 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1968 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

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”),

. 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.,

(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.,

(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

(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 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1968 Doc: 6 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 3 of 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