Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Clement v. Bojangles Corp Inc, 01-1154 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1154 Visitors: 23
Filed: Jun. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1154 ROBERT CLEMENT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOJANGLES’ RESTAURANTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-99-1010-1) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Clement, Appell
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1154 ROBERT CLEMENT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOJANGLES’ RESTAURANTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-99-1010-1) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Clement, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Evans Johnson, ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina; Sandra G. Cordova, BOJANGLES’ RESTAURANTS, INCORPORATED, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Clement appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc., in this action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Clement v. Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc., No. CA-99-1010-1 (M.D.N.C. filed Jan. 4, 2001; entered Jan. 5, 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 * This case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising jurisdiction upon consent of the parties. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(l) (West 1993 & Supp. 2000). 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