Filed: Sep. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2393 EDDIE CURRENCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRUCE HARDWOOD FLOORING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Bruce Hardwood Flooring; TRIANGLE PACIFIC CORPORATION, d/b/a Bruce Hardwood Flooring, a Division of Triangle Pacific Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-101-2) Submitted: Ma
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2393 EDDIE CURRENCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRUCE HARDWOOD FLOORING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Bruce Hardwood Flooring; TRIANGLE PACIFIC CORPORATION, d/b/a Bruce Hardwood Flooring, a Division of Triangle Pacific Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-101-2) Submitted: May..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2393 EDDIE CURRENCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BRUCE HARDWOOD FLOORING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a Bruce Hardwood Flooring; TRIANGLE PACIFIC CORPORATION, d/b/a Bruce Hardwood Flooring, a Division of Triangle Pacific Corporation, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-99-101-2) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: September 10, 2001 Before WILKINS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Currence, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Bograd, Frederick Martin Thurman, Jr., SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, Charlotte, North Carolina; Frank P. Bush, Jr., BUSH & BUSH, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eddie Currence appeals the district court’s order granting relief for Defendants in Currence’s action claiming age discrim- ination in employment. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Currence v. Bruce Hardwood Flooring Ltd. P’ship, No. CA-99-101-2 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 27, 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