Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brandon v. City of Richmond VA, 01-2412 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2412 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 23, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2412 TIMOTHY S. BRANDON; WILLIAM L. DEW, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA; CALVIN JAMISON, City Manager for the City of Richmond; JACK MCELFISH, Fire Chief of the City of Richmond; JOHN TUNSTALL, Division Fire Chief for the City of Richmond; LARRY TUNSTALL, Division Fire Chief for the City of Richmond, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2412 TIMOTHY S. BRANDON; WILLIAM L. DEW, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA; CALVIN JAMISON, City Manager for the City of Richmond; JACK MCELFISH, Fire Chief of the City of Richmond; JOHN TUNSTALL, Division Fire Chief for the City of Richmond; LARRY TUNSTALL, Division Fire Chief for the City of Richmond, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Dennis W. Dohnal, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-874-3) Submitted: September 12, 2002 Decided: September 23, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert P. Geary, Richmond, Virginia; William S. Francis, Jr., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Beverly A. Burton, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Keith A. May, Assistant City Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Timothy S. Brandon and William L. Dew appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on their employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the magistrate judge.* See Brandon v. City of Richmond, No. CA-00-874-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 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