Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Olandio Workman v. Bill M., 17-2387 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-2387 Visitors: 28
Filed: Apr. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2387 OLANDIO RAY WORKMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BILL M., CEO, Engineered Product Inc.; MONTRE JETER, lead man; CALEB DAVIS, co worker; CHRIS MATTERN, co worker; TEE BROKISKIE, 1st shift supervisor; MICHAEL COMPOS, co worker; JOHN, 1st shift supervisor, 2/2/2016 - 5/5/2016; ENGINEERED PRODUCT CORPORATION CO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenv
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-2387 OLANDIO RAY WORKMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BILL M., CEO, Engineered Product Inc.; MONTRE JETER, lead man; CALEB DAVIS, co worker; CHRIS MATTERN, co worker; TEE BROKISKIE, 1st shift supervisor; MICHAEL COMPOS, co worker; JOHN, 1st shift supervisor, 2/2/2016 - 5/5/2016; ENGINEERED PRODUCT CORPORATION CO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:17-cv-00972-RBH) Submitted: March 29, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018 Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se. James T. Hedgepath, NEXSEN PRUET, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee Engineered Product Corporation Co. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Olandio Ray Workman appeals from the district court’s order accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Workman v. Bill M., No. 6:17-cv-00972- RBH (D.S.C. Oct. 26, 2017). 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