Filed: Apr. 25, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2246 BURTRICE D. BEST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF DURHAM, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-98-697-5-H) Submitted: March 20, 2000 Decided: April 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2246 BURTRICE D. BEST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF DURHAM, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-98-697-5-H) Submitted: March 20, 2000 Decided: April 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2246 BURTRICE D. BEST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF DURHAM, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-98-697-5-H) Submitted: March 20, 2000 Decided: April 25, 2000 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Burtrice D. Best, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Jo Korando, Zebulon Dyer Anderson, SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL & JERNIGAN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Burtrice D. Best appeals the district court’s order granting the Appellant’s motion for summary judgment in his employment dis- crimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Best v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., No. CA-98-697-5-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 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