Opinion
No. 11-1106
11-15-2011
WALTER J. SLOCUM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATRICK R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General of the United States, Defendant - Appellee.
Cornelius J. Sullivan, SULLIVAN & WALSH, Mattapan, Massachusetts, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Christie V. Newman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; David C. Belt, Acting Chief Counsel, Michael J. Elston, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:08-cv-03714-CMC)
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cornelius J. Sullivan, SULLIVAN & WALSH, Mattapan, Massachusetts, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Christie V. Newman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; David C. Belt, Acting Chief Counsel, Michael J. Elston, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Walter J. Slocum appeals the district court's order finding in favor of Defendant on Slocum's age discrimination claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Slocum v. Donahoe, No. 3:08-cv-03714-CMC (D.S.C. Jan. 4, 2011). Slocum also seeks to appeal the district court's previous order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Slocum's disability discrimination claim. However, because Slocum limited the scope of his notice of appeal to only the district court's order on Slocum's age discrimination claim, his appeal of the district court's previous order on the disability discrimination claim is not properly before this court and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 317 (1988) (requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 3 are jurisdictional).
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 IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART