Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Davis v. Honda of SC, 06-1185 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1185 Visitors: 78
Filed: May 02, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1185 JAMES CLINTON DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HONDA OF SOUTH CAROLINA MANUFACTURING, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and LEONARD LOWERY, Honda of South Carolina; JHON BLACH, Honda of South Carolina; BRAD SMITH, Honda of South Carolina, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:03-cv-03546-RBH) Submitted: March
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1185 JAMES CLINTON DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HONDA OF SOUTH CAROLINA MANUFACTURING, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and LEONARD LOWERY, Honda of South Carolina; JHON BLACH, Honda of South Carolina; BRAD SMITH, Honda of South Carolina, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:03-cv-03546-RBH) Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: May 2, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Clinton Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Pedrick McWilliams, Regina Hollins Lewis, Joan Wash Hartley, NEXSEN PRUET, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: James Clinton Davis appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Defendant on his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213 (2000) and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Davis v. Honda of SC, No. 4:03-cv-03546-RBH (D.S.C. Jan. 26, 2006). 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