Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Power v. Lear Siegler Svc, 00-1080 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1080 Visitors: 36
Filed: Jul. 27, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1080 NATHAN J. POWER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEAR SIEGLER SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and UNC-LEAR SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-98-2752-18-2) Submitted: July 14, 2000 Decided: July 27, 2000 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1080 NATHAN J. POWER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LEAR SIEGLER SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and UNC-LEAR SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-98-2752-18-2) Submitted: July 14, 2000 Decided: July 27, 2000 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. A. Christopher Potts, HITCHCOCK & POTTS, Charleston, South Caro- lina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Harbuck, THE KULLMAN FIRM, Birmingham, Alabama; H. Brewton Hagood, ROSEN, GOODSTEIN & HAGOOD, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Nathan J. Power appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to his former employer in this wrongful termination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the rea- soning of the district court. See Power v. Lear Siegler Servs. Inc., No. CA-98-2752-18-2 (D.S.C. Dec. 14, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 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