Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Anderson v. Garbage Disposal, 01-1189 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1189 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jun. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1189 EDWARD ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARBAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE; REPUBLIC SERVICES, INCORPORATED; DAVE BAVACQUA; FRANK ROCCO; ELIJAH SHAW; LEVINE PROPERTIES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-294-MU) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, a
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1189 EDWARD ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARBAGE DISPOSAL SERVICE; REPUBLIC SERVICES, INCORPORATED; DAVE BAVACQUA; FRANK ROCCO; ELIJAH SHAW; LEVINE PROPERTIES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-294-MU) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia Tighe Bartis, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, Raleigh, North Carolina; Keith Michael Weddington, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina; John Robert Buric, JAMES, MCELROY & DIEHL, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Edward Anderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his various state law claims and granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his claim under his Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). 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 Anderson v. Garbage Disposal Serv., No. CA-00-294-MU (W.D.N.C. Jan. 5, 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