Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Claude F. Moffitt v. Transit Management of Charlotte, and David Hines Rebecca Cherry Robert Williams, 92-2277 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-2277 Visitors: 15
Filed: Oct. 22, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 8 F.3d 819 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Claude F. MOFFITT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANSIT MANAGEMENT OF CHARLOTTE, Defendant-Appellee, and David HINES; Rebecca Cherry; Robert Williams, Defendants. No. 92-2277. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: Ju
More

8 F.3d 819

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Claude F. MOFFITT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TRANSIT MANAGEMENT OF CHARLOTTE, Defendant-Appellee,
and David HINES; Rebecca Cherry; Robert Williams, Defendants.

No. 92-2277.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 21, 1993.
Decided: October 22, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-90-355-C-C)

Claude F. Moffitt, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert Dennis McDonnell, Waggoner, Hamrick, Hasty, Monteith, Kratt & McDonnell, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

W.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Claude F. Moffitt appeals from the district court's order denying relief in this action alleging discharge from employment in violation of a collective bargaining agreement and in retaliation for filing a state worker's compensation claim. 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. Moffitt v. Transit Management of Charlotte, No. CA-90-355-C-C (W.D.N.C. Sept. 21, 1992). 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

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