Filed: Jan. 18, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2261 MICHAEL WALTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN AIRCRAFT CENTER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:09-cv-00462-HMH) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Walton, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2261 MICHAEL WALTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN AIRCRAFT CENTER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:09-cv-00462-HMH) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Walton, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2261 MICHAEL WALTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN AIRCRAFT CENTER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:09-cv-00462-HMH) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Wendy Lyn Furhang, Stephanie E. Lewis, Andreas Neal Satterfield, Jr., JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Walton appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation granting summary judgment in favor of Lockheed Martin on Walton’s Title VII and breach of contract claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Walton v. Lockheed Martin Aircraft Ctr., No. 6:09-cv-00462-HMH (D.S.C. Oct. 7, 2010). 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