Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Scott v. Veneman, 01-1871 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1871 Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 28, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1871 JERRY C. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANN VENEMAN, in her official capacity as Secretary of United States Department of Agriculture; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRI- CULTURE; SAMUEL J. COLEY; BOB FOIL; PHILLIP FARLAND, in their official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1871 JERRY C. SCOTT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ANN VENEMAN, in her official capacity as Secretary of United States Department of Agriculture; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRI- CULTURE; SAMUEL J. COLEY; BOB FOIL; PHILLIP FARLAND, in their official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-161-4-H) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002 Before WILKINS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick H. Flanagan, Norwood P. Blanchard, III, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. John S. Bruce, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Jerri U. Dunston, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jerry C. Scott appeals from the district court’s order grant- ing summary judgment in his former employer’s favor in this action alleging discrimination based upon disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701-796 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint and supple- mental appendices, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Scott v. Veneman, No. CA-99-161-4-H (E.D.N.C. May 24, 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
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