Filed: Dec. 02, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1723 EARL BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEARS AUTOMOTIVE CENTER; SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-67) Submitted: November 18, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1723 EARL BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEARS AUTOMOTIVE CENTER; SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-67) Submitted: November 18, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl B..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1723 EARL BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEARS AUTOMOTIVE CENTER; SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-67) Submitted: November 18, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Brown, Appellant Pro Se. John Doughty Cole, Sr., Robert S. O’Neale, III, HAYNSWORTH, BALDWIN, JOHNSON & GREAVES, L.L.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Earl Brown appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action alleging wrongful termination from employment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Brown v. Sears Automotive Center, No. CA-01-67 (M.D.N.C. June 21, 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
