Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Taylor v. Ingles Markets, 05-1045 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1045 Visitors: 21
Filed: May 24, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1045 ANTONIO BALDWIN TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INGLES MARKETS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA-02-4072-8-27) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Baldwin Taylor, Appell
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1045 ANTONIO BALDWIN TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INGLES MARKETS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA-02-4072-8-27) Submitted: May 19, 2005 Decided: May 24, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Baldwin Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. David Lee Terry, Parmele Price Calame, Dorothy Wilson Stark, POYNER & SPRUILL, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina; Carroll Heiskell Roe, Jr., William Alexander Coates, ROE, CASSIDY, COATES & PRICE, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Antonio Baldwin Taylor appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of Ingles Markets, Inc., in Taylor’s employment discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Taylor v. Ingles Markets, Inc., No. CA-02-4072-8-27 (D.S.C. Dec. 13, 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 -
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