Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

90-1545 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 90-1545 Visitors: 24
Filed: May 06, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 932 F.2d 963 57 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1896 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Leo R. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe CULLIPHER CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, INCORPORATED, Joe Cullipher, Individually, Curtis James Gordon, Individually, Tony Albanese, Indi
More

932 F.2d 963

57 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1896

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Leo R. EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Joe CULLIPHER CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, INCORPORATED, Joe
Cullipher, Individually, Curtis James Gordon,
Individually, Tony Albanese,
Individually, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-1545.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 15, 1991.
Decided May 6, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-89-86-4-CIV)

Leo R. Edwards, appellant pro se.

Fitzhugh Ellsworth Wallace, Jr., Wallace, Morris, Barwick & Rochelle, P.A., Kinston, N.C., for appellees.

F.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, PHILLIPS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Leo R. Edwards appeals from the district court's order dismissing his Title VII suit. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Edwards v. Joe Cullipher Chrysler-Plymouth, CA-89-86-4-CIV (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 1990). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

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