Filed: Apr. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2302 WIEH GEORGE KUN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BERKELEY COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Defendant - Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-790-2-18) Submitted: March 28, 2002 Decided: April 17, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2302 WIEH GEORGE KUN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BERKELEY COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Defendant - Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-790-2-18) Submitted: March 28, 2002 Decided: April 17, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2302 WIEH GEORGE KUN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BERKELEY COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Defendant - Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-790-2-18) Submitted: March 28, 2002 Decided: April 17, 2002 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wieh George Kun, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Lynwood Brown, YOUNG, CLEMENT, RIVERS & TISDALE, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Wieh George Kun appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Appellee on his race and sex discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Kun v. Berkeley County Gov’t, No. CA-00-790-2- 18 (D.S.C. Oct. 2, 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