Filed: Jul. 14, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1649 EARL BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROLINA TIRE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-97-1359-1) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Wesl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1649 EARL BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROLINA TIRE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-97-1359-1) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Wesle..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1649 EARL BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROLINA TIRE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-97-1359-1) Submitted: July 8, 1999 Decided: July 14, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earl Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Wesley Fox, Carrie Dove Storer, KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Earl Brown appeals the district court’s order dismissing his discrimination action without prejudice for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opin- ion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Brown v. Carolina Tire Co., No. CA-97-1359-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 9, 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
