Filed: May 31, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1782 DALE E. FINDLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VOLVO POWERTRAIN NORTH AMERICA; VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA; VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA; MACK TRUCKS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-03509-JFM) Submitted: May 11, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1782 DALE E. FINDLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VOLVO POWERTRAIN NORTH AMERICA; VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA; VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA; MACK TRUCKS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-03509-JFM) Submitted: May 11, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1782 DALE E. FINDLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VOLVO POWERTRAIN NORTH AMERICA; VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA; VOLVO GROUP NORTH AMERICA; MACK TRUCKS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-03509-JFM) Submitted: May 11, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven M. Spiegel, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Suzzanne W. Decker, John M. Gilman, MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dale E. Findley appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment and awarding costs in favor of his former employer, Mack Trucks. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Findley v. Volvo Powertrain N. Am., No. 1:08-cv-03509-JFM (D. Md. Apr. 6, 2010; July 1, 2010). We grant Findley’s motion to supplement the record pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j). 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