Filed: Mar. 05, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2234 SUNNY O. EKOKOTU, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BUNDY AMERICAN CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 1258-AMD) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: March 5, 2004 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sunny O. Ekokotu, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2234 SUNNY O. EKOKOTU, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BUNDY AMERICAN CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 1258-AMD) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: March 5, 2004 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sunny O. Ekokotu, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2234 SUNNY O. EKOKOTU, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BUNDY AMERICAN CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03- 1258-AMD) Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: March 5, 2004 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sunny O. Ekokotu, Appellant Pro Se. Maurice Michael LaPlaca, Jr., Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sunny O. Ekokotu appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Ekokotu v. Bundy American Corp., No. CA-03-1258-AMD (D. Md. Sept. 22, 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 -
