Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lovette v. Sonoco Prods Co, 00-2336 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2336 Visitors: 39
Filed: Mar. 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2336 TONY LOVETTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and RUDOLPH S. SCOTT, JR.; JULIUS C. HIGGINS, Plaintiffs, versus SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-437-3-17) Submitted: March 9, 2001 Decided: March 23, 2001 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2336 TONY LOVETTE, Plaintiff - Appellant, and RUDOLPH S. SCOTT, JR.; JULIUS C. HIGGINS, Plaintiffs, versus SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-437-3-17) Submitted: March 9, 2001 Decided: March 23, 2001 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cletus K. Okpalaeke, OKPALAEKE LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. James M. Powell, Linda B. Rogers, HAYNSWORTH, BALD- WIN, JOHNSON & GREAVES, L.L.C., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tony Lovette appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Sonoco Products Company, in his civil action alleging employment discrimination and wrongful termination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lovette v. Sonoco Prods. Co., No. CA-99-437-3-17 (D.S.C. Sept. 11, 2001). 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