Filed: Jul. 28, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1560 DANIEL P. WOODLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE HON COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. THOMAS H. ROBERTS, Esq., Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-02-186-3) Submitted: July 2, 2003 Decided: July 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1560 DANIEL P. WOODLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE HON COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. THOMAS H. ROBERTS, Esq., Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-02-186-3) Submitted: July 2, 2003 Decided: July 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1560
DANIEL P. WOODLIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THE HON COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
THOMAS H. ROBERTS, Esq.,
Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-02-186-3)
Submitted: July 2, 2003 Decided: July 28, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel P. Woodlin, Appellant Pro Se. Lynn Forgrieve Jacob, Dana
C.M. Peluso, WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CLARK & DOBBINS, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daniel P. Woodlin has filed a second notice of appeal from the
district court’s order granting summary judgment to his former
employer in his action alleging employment discrimination. We
previously affirmed the district court’s order in Woodlin’s first
appeal of that order. See Woodlin v. Hon Co., No. 03-1161,
2003 WL
21154294 (4th Cir. May 20, 2003) (unpublished). Our affirmance of
the order is now the law of the case, see Christianson v. Colt
Indus. Operating Corp.,
486 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1988); Sejman v.
Warner-Lambert Co.,
845 F.2d 66, 68-69 (4th Cir. 1988), and thus we
dismiss the instant appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
2