Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Morley v. NC Dept of Human Res, 02-2033 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2033 Visitors: 18
Filed: Dec. 19, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2033 ROBERT TILSON MORLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Broughton Hospital; H. DAVID BRUTON, M.D., Secretary; SETH P. HUNT, JR.; MICHAEL ORNDOFF, Defendants - Appellees, and KEVIN KILBRIDE, M.D.; RANDALL LAY, M.D., each in his official and individual capacity, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Max
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2033 ROBERT TILSON MORLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Broughton Hospital; H. DAVID BRUTON, M.D., Secretary; SETH P. HUNT, JR.; MICHAEL ORNDOFF, Defendants - Appellees, and KEVIN KILBRIDE, M.D.; RANDALL LAY, M.D., each in his official and individual capacity, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-250-1-C) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 19, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Tilson Morley, Appellant Pro Se. Donna B. Wojcik, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Morgantown, North Carolina; Dorothy Powers, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Tilson Morley appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Morley v. North Carolina Dep’t of Human Res., No. CA-00-250-1-C (W.D.N.C. July 31, 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
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