Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

McCrary v. Sears Roebuck & Co, 97-1702 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1702 Visitors: 19
Filed: Oct. 08, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1702 KENNETH T. MCCRARY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY; ICON HEALTH AND FITNESS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2075-6-20AK) Submitted: August 29, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Jud
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1702 KENNETH T. MCCRARY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SEARS ROEBUCK AND COMPANY; ICON HEALTH AND FITNESS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2075-6-20AK) Submitted: August 29, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth T. McCrary, Appellant Pro Se. James Thomas Irvin, III, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Columbia, South Carolina; George Kermit Lyall, William Stevens Brown, V, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Greenville, South Carolina; Robert Herndon Brunson, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, Atlanta, Georgia, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 summary judgment to Defendants in Appellant's products liability 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. McCrary v. Sears Roebuck & Co., No. CA-96-2075-6-20AK (D.S.C. Apr. 28, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials 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