The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1805
CALVIN EARL BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
(P & D Lodging, Inc.),
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 06-1815
CALVIN EARL BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Pitt
Co. Schools,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 06-1816
CALVIN EARL BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Sam’s
Club, Inc.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:05-cv-00074-H; 4:05-cv-00075-H;
4:05-cv-00148-H)
Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 19, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Calvin Earl Brown, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Calvin E. Brown appeals from three separate actions
alleging employment discrimination, which have been consolidated on
appeal. In each case, the district court adopted the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation to dismiss as frivolous the
action, under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915(A) (West Supp. 2006),
and noted that despite clear notice, Brown failed to file
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Thus Brown
has waived his right to appeal these orders. Wells v. Shriners
Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 201 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). We find no reversible
error in the district court’s orders in each case denying Brown’s
motion to reconsider and his motion to appoint counsel.
Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. See
Brown v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, No. 4:05-cv-74-H
(E.D.N.C. June 20, 2006 & July 7, 2006); Brown v. Equal Employment
Opportunity Comm’n, No. 4:05-cv-75-H (E.D.N.C. June 20, 2006 &
July 7, 2006); Brown v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n, No.
4:05-cv-148-H (E.D.N.C. June 20, 2006 & July 7, 2006). 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