Filed: Feb. 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2097 RAJAEE A. POOLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUPERVALU HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-03-275-3) Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before WIDENER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2097 RAJAEE A. POOLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUPERVALU HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-03-275-3) Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before WIDENER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2097 RAJAEE A. POOLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUPERVALU HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-03-275-3) Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before WIDENER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rajaee A. Pooler, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Garrison Meyer, III, Vijay Kumar Mago, LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rajaee A. Pooler appeals the district court’s order adopting the reasoning set forth in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and granting summary judgment in favor of Supervalu Holdings, Inc. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pooler v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc., No. CA-03- 275-3 (E.D. Va. July 23, 2004). 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 -