Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Matthews v. Eveready Battery Co, 95-2464 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2464 Visitors: 69
Filed: Aug. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2464 DAVID L. MATTHEWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, versus EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-92-610-2) Submitted: February 6, 1996 Decided: August 2, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2464 DAVID L. MATTHEWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, versus EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-92-610-2) Submitted: February 6, 1996 Decided: August 2, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David L. Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. William Lawrence Rikard, Jr., Maureen Roncevich Hall, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to the Appellees in this action alleging employ- ment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Matthews v. Eveready Battery Co., Inc., No. CA-92-610-2 (M.D.N.C. June 26, 1995). 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
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