Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

John Woods v. The Boeing Company, 13-2455 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-2455 Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2455 JOHN WOODS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:11-cv-02855-RMG) Submitted: September 26, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald L. Gilliard, Joseph R. Hennell, TH
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2455 JOHN WOODS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:11-cv-02855-RMG) Submitted: September 26, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald L. Gilliard, Joseph R. Hennell, THE LAW OFFICE OF GERALD L. GILLIARD, ESQ., LLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Cherie W. Blackburn, Michael P. Scott, NEXSEN PRUET, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Woods appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his former employer on his claims that the employer failed to accommodate his disabilities and discharged him in retaliation for requesting such accommodations, and he appeals the order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Woods v. The Boeing Co., No. 2:11-cv-02855-RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 19, 2013; Oct. 30, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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