Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Reginald Evans v. Land Star Transportation, 16-2109 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-2109 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jun. 08, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2109 REGINALD EVANS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LAND STAR TRANSPORTATION LOGISTIC, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:15-cv-03521-JFA) Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: June 8, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2109 REGINALD EVANS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. LAND STAR TRANSPORTATION LOGISTIC, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:15-cv-03521-JFA) Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: June 8, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Reginald Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Robert D. Moseley, Jr., SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD, LLP, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Reginald Evans appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action for discovery violations, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), and the order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Evans v. Land Star Transp. Logistic, Inc., No. 0:15-cv-03521-JFA (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2016; Sept. 20, 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