USCA4 Appeal: 24-2167 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2167

CLINTON BRINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WALMART, INC., Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00079-D-KS)

Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: March 31, 2025

Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clinton Brinson, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Cleys, Kellie Anne Tabor, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-2167 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Clinton Brinson appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative for, summary judgment on Brinson’s claims brought pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213, and North Carolina’s Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 95-240 to 95-245.

Limiting our review to the issues Brinson raises in his informal opening and supplemental briefs, * see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 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 find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order, Brinson v. Walmart, Inc., No. 5:24-cv- 00079-D-KS (E.D.N.C. filed Sept. 25, 2024 & entered Sept. 26, 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

* We deny Appellee’s motion to strike Brinson’s informal supplemental brief or, in the alternative, for leave to file a supplemental informal response brief.