Filed: May 31, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2319 GARY G. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TIETEX INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (7:08-cv-03020-JMC) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary G. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Pete
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2319 GARY G. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. TIETEX INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (7:08-cv-03020-JMC) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary G. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Peter..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2319
GARY G. HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
TIETEX INTERNATIONAL, LIMITED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (7:08-cv-03020-JMC)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary G. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Brendan Murphy, Fred W.
Suggs, Jr., OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gary G. Harris appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on his
action brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (West 2008 & Supp. 2010). We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Harris v. Tietex Int’l, Ltd., No. 7:08-cv-03020-JMC
(D.S.C. Oct. 28, 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