Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lenhart v. General Electric Co, 01-2325 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2325 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jun. 03, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2325 JOHN A. LENHART, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and GE LIGHTING SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-174-3-MU) Submitted: April 11, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2325 JOHN A. LENHART, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and GE LIGHTING SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-174-3-MU) Submitted: April 11, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John W. Gresham, FERGUSON, STEIN, CHAMBERS, WALLAS, ADKINS, GRESHAM & SUMTER, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. G. Scott Humphrey, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, P.L.L.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John A. Lenhart appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to General Electric Company on Lenhart’s claims of discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621-634 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001), and a related state law claim. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Lenhart’s motion for leave to file additional material, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lenhart v. Gen. Elec. Co., No. CA-99-174-3-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 28, 2001 & entered Oct. 1, 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