Campbell v. Bottling Group, LLC, 052120 FED2, 19-1345-cv
|Party Name:||BOBBY CAMPBELL, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOTTLING GROUP, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Bobby Campbell, Jr., pro se, Gainesville, FL. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Linda T. Prestegaard, Phillips Lytle LLP, Rochester, NY.|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||May 21, 2020|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of May, two thousand twenty.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (David G. Larimer, Judge).
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Bobby Campbell, Jr., pro se, Gainesville, FL.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Linda T. Prestegaard, Phillips Lytle LLP, Rochester, NY.
PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges.[*]
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Bobby Campbell, Jr., who is African American and proceeding pro se, appeals a decision of the District Court (Larimer, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Bottling Group, LLC, on his employment discrimination claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) for race-based discrimination and retaliation. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
As an initial matter, we conclude that Campbell abandoned his failure to promote claim by not raising any arguments relating to that claim in his briefing on appeal. We "liberally construe pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants . . . to raise the strongest arguments they suggest." McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). But a pro se appellant must still comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a), which...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP