Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Venning v. DGSC, 95-2567 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2567 Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 15, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2567 BENJAMIN M. VENNING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER, Defendant - Appellee, and VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-772-3) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2567 BENJAMIN M. VENNING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEFENSE GENERAL SUPPLY CENTER, Defendant - Appellee, and VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-772-3) Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 15, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Benjamin M. Venning, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 entering judgment as a matter of law in favor of Defendant in this action in which Appellant sought judicial review of the decisions denying relief in his employee grievance. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord- ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Venning v. Defense General Supply Center , No. CA-94-772-3 (E.D. Va. July 6, 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