Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Foster v. City of Greenville, 03-2016 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2016 Visitors: 11
Filed: Nov. 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2016 RICHARD E. FOSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF GREENVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT, Defendant - Appellee, and W. T. MCDOWELL, Chief, Fire Marshal; L. H. GODFREY, Assistant Fire Marshal; R. A. COOK; KENNY V. CROSBY, Director of Human Resources, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-4824-6-25AK) Submitted: Novem
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2016 RICHARD E. FOSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF GREENVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT, Defendant - Appellee, and W. T. MCDOWELL, Chief, Fire Marshal; L. H. GODFREY, Assistant Fire Marshal; R. A. COOK; KENNY V. CROSBY, Director of Human Resources, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-4824-6-25AK) Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard E. Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Casey Brown, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Richard E. Foster appeals the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and awarding summary judgment to Defendants and dismissing his complaint filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Foster v. City of Greenville Fire Dep’t, No. CA-01-4824-6-25AK (D.S.C. Aug. 7, 2003). 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