Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jorgensen v. Putt Putt Golf, 96-1939 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1939 Visitors: 29
Filed: Dec. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1939 DANE C. JORGENSEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PUTT PUTT GOLF COURSES OF RICHMOND, INCOR- PORATED, d/b/a Putt Putt Golf and Games, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1027-3) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1939 DANE C. JORGENSEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PUTT PUTT GOLF COURSES OF RICHMOND, INCOR- PORATED, d/b/a Putt Putt Golf and Games, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1027-3) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dane C. Jorgensen, Appellant Pro Se. Daryl Eugene Webb, Jr., MAYS & VALENTINE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting the employer's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Appellant's claim filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 12101-12117 (1994). 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. Jorgensen v. Putt Putt Golf Courses of Richmond, Inc., No. CA-95-1027-3 (E.D. Va. May 28, 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 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