Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thompson v. Pete's Brewing Co, 99-2647 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2647 Visitors: 12
Filed: May 03, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2647 JAMES M. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PETE’S BREWING COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98- 1907-MJG) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 3, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James M. Thompso
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2647 JAMES M. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PETE’S BREWING COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98- 1907-MJG) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 3, 2000 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James M. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Burton John Fishman, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK, & STEWART, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James M. Thompson appeals the district court’s orders denying relief in Thompson’s age discrimination in employment action and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.* See Thompson v. Pete’s Brewing Co., No. CA-98-1907-MJG (D. Md. Oct. 27 & Nov. 10, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Thompson apparently has filed in the district court a motion to supplement the record on appeal. Because this motion is not before this court, we decline to act on it. 2
Source:  CourtListener

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