Filed: Jan. 30, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1873 ELIGIO V. SANCHEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF CLINTON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-78-7-F) Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 30, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1873 ELIGIO V. SANCHEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF CLINTON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-78-7-F) Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 30, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel F..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1873 ELIGIO V. SANCHEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF CLINTON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-78-7-F) Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 30, 2001 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel F. Read, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Patricia L. Holland, Maranda J. Freeman, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eligio V. Sanchez appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in his employment discrimination suit. 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. Sanchez v. City of Clinton, No. CA-99-78-7- F (E.D.N.C. June 7, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
