Filed: Jul. 13, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2573 DOYLE JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car; AMY SNYDER, Defendants - Appellees, and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-367-A) Submitted: June 22, 1999 Decided: July 13, 1999 Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BU
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2573 DOYLE JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car; AMY SNYDER, Defendants - Appellees, and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-98-367-A) Submitted: June 22, 1999 Decided: July 13, 1999 Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUT..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-2573
DOYLE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, d/b/a Enterprise
Rent-A-Car; AMY SNYDER,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-98-367-A)
Submitted: June 22, 1999 Decided: July 13, 1999
Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David A. Branch, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BRANCH, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellant. Eugene Scalia, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, L.L.P.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(C).
PER CURIAM:
Doyle Johnson appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment for the Appellees in this Title VII action, 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 2000e - 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. We note that Johnson’s claims of negligent supervision and
negligent retention are not cognizable under Virginia law. See
Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. v. Dowdy,
365 S.E.2d 751, 754 (Va.
1988). Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of
the district court. See Johnson v. Enterprise Leasing, No. CA-98-
367-A (E.D. Va. Sept. 24, 1998). We grant the Appellees’ motion to
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