Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Soul v. Movado Retail Group, 08-1072 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1072 Visitors: 20
Filed: Dec. 04, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1072 THOMAS J. E. SOUL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MOVADO RETAIL GROUP, INCORPORATED; RICK ABOUL-HOSN; MAN CHOI; VICTORIA CUMUYANI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:07-cv-00365-GBL-BRP) Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: December 4, 2008 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1072 THOMAS J. E. SOUL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MOVADO RETAIL GROUP, INCORPORATED; RICK ABOUL-HOSN; MAN CHOI; VICTORIA CUMUYANI, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:07-cv-00365-GBL-BRP) Submitted: October 23, 2008 Decided: December 4, 2008 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas J. E. Soul, Appellant Pro Se. Rafael E. Morell, Francina Segbefia, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas J. E. Soul appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Soul’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. Soul v. Movado Retail Group, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-00365-GBL-BRP (Nov. 8, 2007). Moreover, we find the district court neither abused its discretion in ordering Soul to pay Movado’s attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with Soul’s failure to comply with discovery orders nor erred in declining to provide Soul with court-appointed counsel. 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