Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jenkins v. Eckerd Drug Store, 95-2825 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2825 Visitors: 78
Filed: Mar. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2825 WALTER C. JENKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ECKERD DRUG STORE #1038, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-1209-2-2AJ) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2825 WALTER C. JENKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ECKERD DRUG STORE #1038, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-1209-2-2AJ) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter C. Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. David Brian McCormack, BUIST, MOORE, SMYTHE & MCGEE, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment on his Title VII claim alleging race discrimination. The parties consented to the juris- diction of the magistrate judge. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Jenkins v. Eckerd Drug Store #1038, No. CA-94-1209-2-2AJ (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 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