Filed: Apr. 12, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1952 DANNY J. SEKOH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CRAIG WERNER, Division Manager; UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:04-cv-00893-BO) Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: April 12, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1952 DANNY J. SEKOH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CRAIG WERNER, Division Manager; UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:04-cv-00893-BO) Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: April 12, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1952 DANNY J. SEKOH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CRAIG WERNER, Division Manager; UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:04-cv-00893-BO) Submitted: March 21, 2007 Decided: April 12, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny J. Sekoh, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Ballantine Molony, ALSTON & BIRD, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Danny J. Sekoh appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants and dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sekoh v. Werner, No. 5:04-cv-00893-BO (E.D.N.C. July 19, 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 - 2 -
