Filed: Dec. 08, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2158 REGIS P. SPANDHLA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PGI, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Produc- tion Group International, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-00-895-A) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2158 REGIS P. SPANDHLA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PGI, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Produc- tion Group International, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-00-895-A) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2158 REGIS P. SPANDHLA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PGI, INCORPORATED, formerly known as Produc- tion Group International, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-00-895-A) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 8, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Regis P. Spandhla, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Antoinette Volzer, MCGUIRE, WOODS, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Regis Spandhla appeals from the district court order dis- missing his employment discrimination action for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Spandhla v. PGI, Inc., No. CA-00-895-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 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 decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
