FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10370730
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Clinton Brinson v. Walmart Inc.

No. 10370730 · Decided March 31, 2025
No. 10370730 · Fourth Circuit · 2025 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decided
March 31, 2025
Citation
No. 10370730
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-2167 Doc: 18 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-2167 CLINTON BRINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WALMART, INC., Defendant - Appellee.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 2
Plain English Summary
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.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
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.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Clinton Brinson v. Walmart Inc. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on March 31, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10370730 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →