Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Thompson v. Eagle Direct Inc, 01-1949 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1949 Visitors: 24
Filed: Mar. 18, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1949 JOSEPH R. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EAGLE DIRECT, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-2882-AW) Submitted: February 28, 2002 Decided: March 18, 2002 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe C. Ashworth, Leonardt
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1949 JOSEPH R. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EAGLE DIRECT, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-2882-AW) Submitted: February 28, 2002 Decided: March 18, 2002 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe C. Ashworth, Leonardtown, Maryland, for Appellant. Michael P. Broderick, DONOVAN & BRODERICK, P.C., Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph R. Thompson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant in this action alleging unlawful discharge in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Our review of the materials before us convinces us that age was not a motivating factor in Thompson’s discharge. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thompson’s motion to dismiss Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as untimely filed. We find no reversible error and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Thompson v. Eagle Direct, Inc., No. CA-99- 2882-AW (D. Md. filed June 27, 2001, entered June 28, 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