Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Henderson v. Fuji Photo Film Inc, 00-2326 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2326 Visitors: 55
Filed: May 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2326 FRANKLIN B. HENDERSON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FUJI PHOTO FILM, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-307-8-20AK) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2326 FRANKLIN B. HENDERSON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FUJI PHOTO FILM, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-307-8-20AK) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin B. Henderson, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard James Morgan, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Franklin B. Henderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights claims and granting summary judgment on his Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000), claim of employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommen- dation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Henderson v. Fuji Photo Film, Inc., No. CA-99-307-8-20AK (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 2001). 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