Filed: Nov. 13, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1983 DEREK MAURICE BETHEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CIVIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-01-54-4) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dere
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1983 DEREK MAURICE BETHEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CIVIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-01-54-4) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1983 DEREK MAURICE BETHEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CIVIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-01-54-4) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Maurice Bethel, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy North Delogu, Katherine Anne Goetzl, Stacey L. Hawkins, LITTLER MENDELSON, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Derek Maurice Bethel appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his civil action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bethel v. Civic Dev. Group, No. CA-01-54-4 (W.D. Va. July 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
