Filed: May 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1138 GERALD R. BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BP AMOCO POLYMERS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-3649-6-13AK) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 23, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1138 GERALD R. BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BP AMOCO POLYMERS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-3649-6-13AK) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 23, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1138 GERALD R. BYRD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BP AMOCO POLYMERS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-99-3649-6-13AK) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 23, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald R. Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Ingrid Blackwelder Erwin, OGLE- TREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gerald R. Byrd appeals the district court’s order of summary judgment. 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 Byrd v. BP Amoco Polymers, No. CA-99- 3649-6-13AK (D.S.C. Jan. 19, 2001). We deny Byrd’s motion for pro- duction of documents and motion to compel delivery of documents. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2