Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Miller v. Orangeburg School Dist 5, 99-2454 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2454 Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 21, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2454 KEITH MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ORANGEBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT FIVE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-1111-5-06BD) Submitted: May 23, 2000 Decided: September 21, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublishe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2454 KEITH MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ORANGEBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT FIVE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-1111-5-06BD) Submitted: May 23, 2000 Decided: September 21, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Laura P. Valtorta, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrea E. White, Thomas K. Barlow, DUFF, DUBBERLY, TURNER, WHITE & BOYKIN, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Keith Miller appeals the district court's order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in his racial discrimina- tion employment action. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. Orangeburg South Carolina Consol. Sch. Dist. Five, No. CA-98-1111- 5-06BD (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 1999). 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
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