Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Scott v. UPS, 00-2529 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2529 Visitors: 171
Filed: Feb. 27, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2529 TIMOTHY SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INCORPORATED; TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 391, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-631-5-BR) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 27, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Jud
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2529 TIMOTHY SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INCORPORATED; TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 391, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-631-5-BR) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 27, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Meredith West Holler, ALSTON & BIRD, L.L.P.., Charlotte, North Carolina; Jeffrey M. Sullivan, ALSTON & BIRD, Raleigh, North Carolina; John David James, SMITH, JAMES, ROWLETT & COHEN, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timothy Scott appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action alleging employment discrimination and denying his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Scott v. United Parcel Servs., Inc., No. CA-99-631-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 3, Sept. 26, & Nov. 14, 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