Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Blow v. Philip Morris USA, 03-2335 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2335 Visitors: 20
Filed: Apr. 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2335 JERRY BLOW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PHILIP MORRIS USA, INCORPORATED; BCTW&GM LOCAL UNION 203-T, Defendants - Appellees, and JAMES M HARKLESS, OSCAR B. GILES, JR., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-201) Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 19, 2004 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2335 JERRY BLOW, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PHILIP MORRIS USA, INCORPORATED; BCTW&GM LOCAL UNION 203-T, Defendants - Appellees, and JAMES M HARKLESS, OSCAR B. GILES, JR., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-03-201) Submitted: March 31, 2004 Decided: April 19, 2004 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Blow, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberlee W. DeWitt, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia; James J. Vergara, Jr., VERGARA & ASSOCIATES, Hopewell, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Jerry Blow seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment in his action under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (2000), in which he attacked an arbitrator’s decision in favor of his former employer. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Blow v. Philip Morris USA, No. CA-03-201 (E.D. Va. Oct. 8, 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 - 3 -
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