Facts
- Robert Klein, a former employee of Brookhaven Health Care Facility, sued for wrongful termination, alleging age discrimination and retaliation for reporting workplace safety violations [lines="38-44"].
- The district court granted summary judgment to Brookhaven and The McGuire Group, finding insufficient evidence to support Klein's claims [lines="48-49"].
- Klein alleged he was fired due to his age and whistleblower complaints under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and New York Labor Law [lines="42-43"].
- The trial court concluded that Klein failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the reasons for his termination [lines="70-82"].
- An amendment to NYLL § 740(2)(a) during the case's pendency was not addressed by Klein, leading to the abandonment of that argument on appeal [lines="85-93"].
Issues
- Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment by determining that Klein had not established a genuine dispute of material fact regarding age discrimination and retaliation [lines="48-49"].
- Whether Klein's claims under the amended NYLL § 740(2)(a) were properly abandoned since he did not raise them in his brief on appeal [lines="92-93"].
Holdings
- The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, agreeing that Klein did not create a genuine dispute regarding the basis for his termination [lines="68-68"].
- The argument related to the amendment of NYLL § 740(2)(a) was abandoned, as Klein failed to raise it in his appeal brief [lines="92-93"].
OPINION
*1 Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David William McConnell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-6540 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
David William McConnell appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court found that McConnell was ineligible for the reduction because his instant offense of conviction was a sex offense. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4C1.1(a)(5), (b)(2) (2023).
Before addressing the merits of McConnell’s appeal, we grant McConnell’s pending motion to seal the exhibits accompanying his informal brief. In addition, we have reviewed the record and McConnell’s arguments on appeal, and we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. McConnell , No. 5:22- cr-00124-1 (S.D. W. Va. May 17, 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
2