Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Horton v. Norfolk Southern, 99-1491 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1491 Visitors: 42
Filed: Oct. 19, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1491 EUGENE HORTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, formerly known as Norfolk Southern Corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1247-1) Submitted: October 8, 1999 Decided: October 19, 1999 Before HAMILTON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1491 EUGENE HORTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, formerly known as Norfolk Southern Corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1247-1) Submitted: October 8, 1999 Decided: October 19, 1999 Before HAMILTON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Romallus O. Murphy, Sr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. M. Daniel McGinn, Jennifer K. Van Zant, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eugene Horton, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dis- missing his civil action alleging that he was denied benefits from his former employer because of his race. We have reviewed the rec- ord and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court, finding that Horton’s action is barred by his exe- cution of a valid and comprehensive release. See Horton v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. CA-97-1247-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 1999). 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