Filed: Mar. 19, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2048 MARK BLAIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RAVENSWOOD VILLAGE HEALTH CENTER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-1256-6) Submitted: January 19, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2048 MARK BLAIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RAVENSWOOD VILLAGE HEALTH CENTER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-1256-6) Submitted: January 19, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2048 MARK BLAIR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RAVENSWOOD VILLAGE HEALTH CENTER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-1256-6) Submitted: January 19, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Blair, Appellant Pro Se. Rodney Lloyd Bean, STEPTOE & JOHN- SON, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mark Blair appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Title VII action. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994). We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Blair v. Ravenswood, No. CA-97-1256-6 (S.D.W. Va. June 15, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
