Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Green v. Huntleigh Corp, 01-1014 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1014 Visitors: 56
Filed: May 22, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1014 RONALD M. GREEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HUNTLEIGH CORPORATION; JAMES WILLIAMS; DAVID TRENT; LONNIE POMPEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-371-2) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1014 RONALD M. GREEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HUNTLEIGH CORPORATION; JAMES WILLIAMS; DAVID TRENT; LONNIE POMPEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-371-2) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 22, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald M. Green, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Edward Berry, Jr., MCMAHON, BERGER, HANNA, LINIHAN, CODY & MCCARTHY, St. Louis, Mis- souri; Sharon Maitland Moon, Vivay Kumar Mago, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald M. Green appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his employment discrimination and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint and his motions for reconsideration. His appeal is timely only as to the denial of his motion to re- consider the denial of his motion to reconsider. 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 Green v. Huntleigh Corp., No. CA-00-371-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 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