Filed: Dec. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1905 JAMES H. THOMPSON; LOIS G. THOMPSON; ALEXANDER MURCHISON, JR.; SHAY TOOLES, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus GREENSPRING TOURS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 99-2879-S) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirme
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1905 JAMES H. THOMPSON; LOIS G. THOMPSON; ALEXANDER MURCHISON, JR.; SHAY TOOLES, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus GREENSPRING TOURS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 99-2879-S) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1905 JAMES H. THOMPSON; LOIS G. THOMPSON; ALEXANDER MURCHISON, JR.; SHAY TOOLES, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus GREENSPRING TOURS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 99-2879-S) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francis A. Pommett, III, Esquire, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel- lants. Thomas S. Hood, Towson, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: James H. Thompson, Lois G. Thompson, Alexander Murchison, Jr., and Shay Tooles appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendant in their 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 action. 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 Thompson v. Greenspring Tours Inc., No. CA-99-2879-S (D. Md. June 12, 2000). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2