Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Campion v. GA & FC Wagman Inc, 00-1110 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1110 Visitors: 57
Filed: May 18, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1110 ROBERT CAMPION, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G.A. & F.C. WAGMAN, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM MCCRUDDEN; PENNSYLVANIA HEAVY AND HIGHWAY CONTRACTORS BARGAINING ASSOCIATION; INTER- NATIONAL UNION UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA; LOCAL UNION 15253, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA; FEDERAL HIGHWAY UNITED STATES DEPART- MENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LYNNE ANN BATTAGLIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1110 ROBERT CAMPION, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus G.A. & F.C. WAGMAN, INCORPORATED; WILLIAM MCCRUDDEN; PENNSYLVANIA HEAVY AND HIGHWAY CONTRACTORS BARGAINING ASSOCIATION; INTER- NATIONAL UNION UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA; LOCAL UNION 15253, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA; FEDERAL HIGHWAY UNITED STATES DEPART- MENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LYNNE ANN BATTAGLIA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-1321-JFM) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Campion, Appellant Pro Se. J. Michael McGuire, Robert H. Ingle, III, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, Baltimore, Maryland; Melvin P. Stein, Assistant General Counsel, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Roann Nichols, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Campion appeals the district court’s orders denying his civil action and motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Campion v. G.A. & F.C. Wagman, Inc., No. CA-99-1321-JFM (D. Md. Dec. 28, 1999 & Jan. 18, 2000). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 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