Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wearing v. Bovis Lend Lease Inc, 18-4928 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-4928 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2391 JACOB WEARING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOVIS & LEND LEASE, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-00-880-5-H-3) Submitted: May 14, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacob Wearing, Appellant Pro S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2391 JACOB WEARING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOVIS & LEND LEASE, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-00-880-5-H-3) Submitted: May 14, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacob Wearing, Appellant Pro Se. Nigle Bruce Barrow, Jr., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jacob Wearing appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for a permanent injunction and granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this employment action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Wearing v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., No. CA-00-880-5-H-3 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 23 & Nov. 15, 2001). We deny Wearing’s motions for a default judgment, to deny Defendant response, and for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). Finally, 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