Filed: Sep. 24, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1328 LARRY SPATES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-652-6) Submitted: September 10, 1996 Decided: September 24, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lar
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1328 LARRY SPATES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-652-6) Submitted: September 10, 1996 Decided: September 24, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1328 LARRY SPATES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Richard C. Erwin, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-652-6) Submitted: September 10, 1996 Decided: September 24, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Spates, Appellant Pro Se. John James Doyle, Jr., Margaret Ann Anderson, CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, Winston-Salem, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 in favor of the Defendant in his civil rights action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Spates v. United Parcel Serv., No. CA-94-652-6 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 1996). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED 2
