Filed: Jun. 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1728 CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES RIVER BUS LINES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-01-652-3) Submitted: June 9, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Davis Burrell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1728 CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES RIVER BUS LINES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-01-652-3) Submitted: June 9, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Davis Burrell,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1728 CHARLES DAVIS BURRELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES RIVER BUS LINES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-01-652-3) Submitted: June 9, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Davis Burrell, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Michael Sims, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Davis Burrell appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Burrell v. James River Bus Lines, Inc., No. CA-01-652-3 (E.D. Va. May 29, 2002). Burrell’s motion to amend is denied. 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
