Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Robinson v. Genesis Health, 02-2441 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2441 Visitors: 17
Filed: Aug. 28, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2441 DEBORAH L. ROBINSON; EDWARD G. ROBINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus GENESIS HEALTH VENTURES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Manor Care, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-875-H) Submitted: July 14, 2003 Decided: August 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirme
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2441 DEBORAH L. ROBINSON; EDWARD G. ROBINSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus GENESIS HEALTH VENTURES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Manor Care, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-875-H) Submitted: July 14, 2003 Decided: August 28, 2003 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C. William Michaels, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. J. Michael McGuire, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Deborah L. Robinson and Edward G. Robinson appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Genesis Health Ventures, Inc., in their action alleging that Genesis Health Ventures terminated Deborah Robinson’s employment in violation of the public policy of Maryland. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Genesis Health Venture’s motion for sanctions and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Robinson v. Genesis Health Ventures, Inc., No. CA-02-875-H (D. Md. Nov. 15, 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