Filed: Feb. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1618 SAMUEL L. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, a New York Corpora- tion; THE SPARTANBURG HERALD-JOURNAL, a South Carolina Corporation, Defendants - Appellees, and MIKE TOWERY; EARL BARBER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-2300-7-20AK) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: Feb
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1618 SAMUEL L. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, a New York Corpora- tion; THE SPARTANBURG HERALD-JOURNAL, a South Carolina Corporation, Defendants - Appellees, and MIKE TOWERY; EARL BARBER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-2300-7-20AK) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: Febr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1618 SAMUEL L. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, a New York Corpora- tion; THE SPARTANBURG HERALD-JOURNAL, a South Carolina Corporation, Defendants - Appellees, and MIKE TOWERY; EARL BARBER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-2300-7-20AK) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel L. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bernard Lindemann, JACK- SON, LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Appel- lees summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. New York Times Co., No. CA-94-2300-7-20AK (D.S.C. Mar. 22, 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