Filed: Nov. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1756 WALTER J. BAILEY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-1996-6-20) Submitted: October 31, 2001 Decided: November 13, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter J. Bailey,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1756 WALTER J. BAILEY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-1996-6-20) Submitted: October 31, 2001 Decided: November 13, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter J. Bailey, J..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1756 WALTER J. BAILEY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-00-1996-6-20) Submitted: October 31, 2001 Decided: November 13, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter J. Bailey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David George Karro, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Walter J. Bailey, Jr., appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis- trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bailey v. Henderson, No. CA-00-1996-6-20 (D.S.C. May 9 & 25, 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 2
