Filed: Mar. 17, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2118 HERBERT MCKINNEY; HUBERT MCKINNEY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Secretary, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-95-160-5) Submitted: March 7, 2000 Decided: March 17, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2118 HERBERT MCKINNEY; HUBERT MCKINNEY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Secretary, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-95-160-5) Submitted: March 7, 2000 Decided: March 17, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2118 HERBERT MCKINNEY; HUBERT MCKINNEY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Secretary, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-95-160-5) Submitted: March 7, 2000 Decided: March 17, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore R. Dues, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Michael L. Keller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Herbert and Hubert McKinney appeal the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment to Defendant. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McKinney v. United States Dep’t of Labor, No. CA-95- 160-5 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 25, 1996). 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 2