Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Owens v. IBM, 97-2273 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-2273 Visitors: 3
Filed: Feb. 03, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2273 MICHAEL E. OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-31-3-P) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, * Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2273 MICHAEL E. OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-31-3-P) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, * Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Evans Johnson, Deanna Leigh Ruddock, KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Caro- lina, for Appellee. * Judge Motz did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael E. Owens appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint that International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) fired him in violation of his civil rights as frivolous and malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is friv- olous. Accordingly, we dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Owens v. IBM, No. CA-97-31-3-P (W.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 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