Murray v. Restor Telephone, 00-10806 (2001)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 00-10806
Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-10806 Summary Calendar _ JOSEPH A. MURRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RESTOR TELEPHONE PRODUCTS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:99-CV-819-H) March 29, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joseph Murray appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Restor Telephone Products. The court has considered appellant’
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-10806 Summary Calendar _ JOSEPH A. MURRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RESTOR TELEPHONE PRODUCTS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:99-CV-819-H) March 29, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joseph Murray appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Restor Telephone Products. The court has considered appellant’s..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _______________________ No. 00-10806 Summary Calendar ______________________ JOSEPH A. MURRAY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RESTOR TELEPHONE PRODUCTS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (3:99-CV-819-H) March 29, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Joseph Murray appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Restor Telephone Products. The court has considered appellant’s position in light of the briefs and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we agree with the district court that Murray failed to provide evidence necessary to sustain his claims of discrimination under Title VII and we therefore AFFIRM. AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
Source: CourtListener
