Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Scott Marshall v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, 19-1437 (2020)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-1437 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jul. 08, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1437 SCOTT MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC; KENT MATHY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-01577-CMC) Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: July 8, 2020 Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1437 SCOTT MARSHALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC; KENT MATHY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-01577-CMC) Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: July 8, 2020 Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas K. Barlow, HALLIGAN MAHONEY WILLIAMS SMITH FAWLEY & REAGLE, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Leon H. Lee, Jr., AT&T SERVICES, INC., Atlanta, Georgia; Matthew S. Brown, LITTLER MENDELSON P.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Scott Marshall appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his employment discrimination claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Marshall v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, No. 3:17-cv-01577- CMC (D.S.C. Mar. 20, 2019). 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

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer