Filed: Jul. 31, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1583 DONALD HODGSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHENANDOAH’S PRIDE DAIRY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-01-29-5) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Hodgson, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1583 DONALD HODGSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHENANDOAH’S PRIDE DAIRY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-01-29-5) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Hodgson, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1583 DONALD HODGSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHENANDOAH’S PRIDE DAIRY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James H. Michael, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-01-29-5) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Hodgson, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffery M. Ricapito, KRUPIN, GREENBAUM & O’BRIEN, Washington, D.C.; Bonnie Lineweaver Paul, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald Hodgson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his action alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1995 & Supp. 2001), by his employer. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Hodgson v. Shenandoah’s Pride, No. CA-01-29-5 (W.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2002). 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