Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Pressley v. SC Dept of Corr, 02-2276 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2276 Visitors: 52
Filed: May 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2276 THOMAS M. PRESSLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-3965-6-24-BG) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2276 THOMAS M. PRESSLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-00-3965-6-24-BG) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas M. Pressley, Appellant Pro Se. Justin Marshall Grow, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Thomas M. Pressley appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer, the South Carolina Department of Corrections, on his claims arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002), and the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pressley v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-00-3965-6-24-BG (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 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