Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Rufus Anderson v. Greenville Health System, 17-1062 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-1062 Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1062 RUFUS JULIUS CORNELIUS ANDERSON, a/k/a Rufus Julius C. Anderson, a/k/a Rufus J. Anderson, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GREENVILLE HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:16-cv-01051-MGL) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1062 RUFUS JULIUS CORNELIUS ANDERSON, a/k/a Rufus Julius C. Anderson, a/k/a Rufus J. Anderson, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GREENVILLE HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:16-cv-01051-MGL) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rufus J. C. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. David Lee Harris, Jr., Michael Montgomery Shetterly, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rufus Julius Cornelius Anderson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Anderson’s motion for an order of protection or restraining order, deny his motion for a subpoena, grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Anderson v. Greenville Health Sys., No. 6:16-cv-01051-MGL (D.S.C. Oct. 31, 2016). 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