Filed: Mar. 27, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1987 LEE KENT HEMPFLING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LM COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED, a Kentucky Corporation; LM COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, a Kentucky Corporation; LM COMMUNICATIONS II OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, a Kentucky Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1987 LEE KENT HEMPFLING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LM COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED, a Kentucky Corporation; LM COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, a Kentucky Corporation; LM COMMUNICATIONS II OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, a Kentucky Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-0..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1987 LEE KENT HEMPFLING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LM COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED, a Kentucky Corporation; LM COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, a Kentucky Corporation; LM COMMUNICATIONS II OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, a Kentucky Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-04-1373-2-PMD) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee Kent Hempfling, Appellant Pro Se. Greg Horton, BUIST, MOORE, SMYTHE, MCGEE, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lee Kent Hempfling appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Hempfling’s employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hempfling v. LM Commc’ns, Inc., No. CA-04-1373-2-PMD (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2005). 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 -