Filed: Feb. 24, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7218 GREGORY BRYCE TANNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORDSTROM CORPORATE OFFICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00241-RAJ-FBS) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Bryce Tan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7218 GREGORY BRYCE TANNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORDSTROM CORPORATE OFFICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00241-RAJ-FBS) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Bryce Tann..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7218 GREGORY BRYCE TANNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORDSTROM CORPORATE OFFICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00241-RAJ-FBS) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Bryce Tanner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gregory Bryce Tanner appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Tanner v. Nordstrom Corporate, No. 2:08-cv-00241-RAJ-FBS (E.D. Va. filed June 16, 2008 & entered June 17, 2008). 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
