Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gonzales v. Meineke Discount, 98-2205 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2205 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 17, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2205 ROEL M. GONZALES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MEINEKE DISCOUNT MUFFLER SHOPS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Carl Horn, III, Chief Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-257-3) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2205 ROEL M. GONZALES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MEINEKE DISCOUNT MUFFLER SHOPS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Carl Horn, III, Chief Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-257-3) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roel M. Gonzales, Appellant Pro Se. Nicole L. Tharrington, Leigh Reynolds King, MEINEKE DISCOUNT MUFFLER SHOPS, INCORPORATED, Char- lotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Roel M. Gonzales appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and dismissing this civil rights action alleging race and age discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (1994); 29 U.S.C.A. § 621-634 (West 1999). 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. See Gonzales v. Meineke Discount Muffler Shops, Inc., No. CA-97-257-3 (W.D.N.C. July 24, 1998). We deny Gonzales’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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