Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Johnson v. Tupperware Inc, 00-2316 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2316 Visitors: 18
Filed: Feb. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2316 MICHAEL T. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TUPPERWARE, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-98-3282-4-17AK) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael T. Johnson, Appella
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2316 MICHAEL T. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TUPPERWARE, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-98-3282-4-17AK) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael T. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael T. Johnson appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint in which he alleged that he was dis- criminated against on the basis of race and age and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during his Workers’ Compensation proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis- trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Tupperware, Inc., No. CA-98-3282-4-17AK (D.S.C. filed Sept. 19, 2000; entered Sept. 20, 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
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