Filed: Dec. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2084 GEORGE GREGORY JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS, INCORPORATED, 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-96-114-R) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2084 GEORGE GREGORY JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS, INCORPORATED, 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-96-114-R) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2084 GEORGE GREGORY JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS, INCORPORATED, 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-96-114-R) 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Gregory Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Roger Louis Williams, WILLIAMS, BUTLER & PIERCE, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 summary judgment to the Defendant on his action alleging breach of an employment contract. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jackson v. Computer Professionals, Inc., No. CA-96-114-R (E.D. Va. June 27, 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
