Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Nance v. Henderson, 00-1917 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1917 Visitors: 10
Filed: Mar. 19, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1917 RONALD I. NANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-257) Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1917 RONALD I. NANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-257) Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: March 19, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angela Newell Gray, GRAY, NEWELL, JOHNSON & BLACKMON, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Lynn P. Klauer, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Lori J. Dym, Brian M. Reimer, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald I. Nance appeals from the district court’s order award- ing summary judgment to the Postal Service on his employment dis- crimination claims. Our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Henderson, No. CA-99-257 (M.D.N.C. June 15, 2000). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer