Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bupp v. Henderson, 00-1767 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1767 Visitors: 40
Filed: Oct. 18, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1767 DAVID L. BUPP, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-99-553-2) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 18, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1767 DAVID L. BUPP, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-99-553-2) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 18, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David L. Bupp, Appellant Pro Se. Kent Pendleton Porter, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David L. Bupp appeals the district court’s order granting De- fendant’s motion for summary judgment in Bupp’s employment discrim- ination action alleging racial and sexual discrimination, and retaliation. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bupp v. Henderson, No. CA-99-553-2 (E.D. Va. Apr. 12, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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