Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Clarke v. Southside Virginia, 02-2391 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2391 Visitors: 77
Filed: May 28, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2391 RONNIE CLARKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTHSIDE VIRGINIA TRAINING CENTER; INDIA SUE RIDOUT, Senior Human Resource Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-699) Submitted: April 23, 2003 Decided: May 28, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2391 RONNIE CLARKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTHSIDE VIRGINIA TRAINING CENTER; INDIA SUE RIDOUT, Senior Human Resource Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-699) Submitted: April 23, 2003 Decided: May 28, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Philip Meredith, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronnie Clarke appeals the magistrate judge’s order* granting summary judgment in favor of Southside Virginia Training Center (“SVTC”) and SVTC’s senior human resources manager, India Sue Ridout, on his claim that SVTC failed to interview and hire him in retaliation for having filed a previous EEOC complaint and lawsuit in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Clarke v. Southside Va. Training Ctr., No. CA-01-699 (E.D. Va. Oct. 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 * The parties consented to review by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2) (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