Filed: Aug. 11, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2414 JAMES L. ALSTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE HEARST CORPORATION, a/k/a Hearst Business Communications, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-22-3) Submitted: July 26, 2004 Decided: August 11, 2004 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2414 JAMES L. ALSTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE HEARST CORPORATION, a/k/a Hearst Business Communications, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-22-3) Submitted: July 26, 2004 Decided: August 11, 2004 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2414 JAMES L. ALSTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE HEARST CORPORATION, a/k/a Hearst Business Communications, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-22-3) Submitted: July 26, 2004 Decided: August 11, 2004 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James L. Alston, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah J. Kromer, James William Haldin, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James L. Alston appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Hearst and dismissing Alston’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court, finding that Alston’s action is barred by his execution of a valid release. See Alston v. The Hearst Corporation, No. CA-02-22-3 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 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 -