Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thomas Gladney v. Southern Railway Company, and Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, 91-1598 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-1598 Visitors: 2
Filed: Mar. 10, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 956 F.2d 1162 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Thomas GLADNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, Defendant. No. 91-1598. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 24, 199
More

956 F.2d 1162

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Thomas GLADNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee,
and
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, Defendant.

No. 91-1598.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 24, 1992.
Decided March 10, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., District Judge. (CA-84-3193-3-OB)

Thomas Gladney, appellant pro se.

Frank Huger Gibbes, III, Gibbes & Clarkson, Greenville, S.C., for appellee.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Thomas Gladney appeals the district court's denial of Gladney's motion to reopen this employment discrimination action. Our review of the record and other materials before us establishes that there was no abuse of discretion. See Green v. Foley, 856 F.2d 660, 665 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1031 (1989). 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