Filed: Feb. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2494 CHARLES W. KENDLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICEMAX, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-00-133-2) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles W. Kendle, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2494 CHARLES W. KENDLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICEMAX, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-00-133-2) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles W. Kendle, Appellant P..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2494 CHARLES W. KENDLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICEMAX, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-00-133-2) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles W. Kendle, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael Lucas, Kristina Helen Vaquera, Ruth Goodboe, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Norfolk, Vir- ginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles W. Kendle appeals the district court’s order dismiss- ing his civil action alleging employment discrimination. 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. See Kendle v. OfficeMax, Inc., No. CA-00-133-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 24, 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
