Filed: May 02, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1159 HENRY HUDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and SAVANNAH RIVER SITE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-1510-1-22BD) Submitted: April 17, 2001 Decided: May 2, 2001 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirme
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1159 HENRY HUDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and SAVANNAH RIVER SITE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-1510-1-22BD) Submitted: April 17, 2001 Decided: May 2, 2001 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1159 HENRY HUDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and SAVANNAH RIVER SITE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-1510-1-22BD) Submitted: April 17, 2001 Decided: May 2, 2001 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Thompson, Jr., Timothy James O’Rourke, MALONE & THOMPSON, Columbia, South Caro- lina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Henry Hudson appeals the district court’s order that granted summary judgment to Westinghouse in Hudson’s civil action in which he alleged mistreatment by his former employer due to his disabil- ity and his race. 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. Hudson v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., No. CA-99-1510-1-22BD (D.S.C. Jan. 24, 2001). We dis- pense 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