Filed: Feb. 04, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2063 VAUGHN V. BRYANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORDSTROM, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1316-A) Submitted: January 25, 2000 Decided: February 4, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2063 VAUGHN V. BRYANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORDSTROM, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-1316-A) Submitted: January 25, 2000 Decided: February 4, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2063
VAUGHN V. BRYANT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NORDSTROM, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District
Judge. (CA-98-1316-A)
Submitted: January 25, 2000 Decided: February 4, 2000
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vaughn V. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen William Robinson,
MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Vaughan Bryant appeals the district court’s order enforcing a
settlement agreement with Nordstrom, Inc. Bryant alleges that he
never agreed to the settlement, and the actions of his counsel were
not binding on him. We review the district court’s order of en-
forcement for abuse of discretion. Young v. Federal Deposit Ins.
Corp.,
103 F.3d 1180, 1194 (4th Cir. 1997). Having reviewed the
record and materials submitted to this court, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the
parties had reached a settlement agreement and in ordering en-
forcement of that agreement. We deny Nordstrom, Inc.’s motion for
sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38. 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