Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Laud-Hammond v. Reger, 01-2498 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2498 Visitors: 41
Filed: May 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2498 ARCHIBALD LAUD-HAMMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARK REGER, Individually and as employee of Johnson C. Smith University, Defendant - Appellee, and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF JOHNSON C. SMITH UNIVERSITY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-18) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002 Befo
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2498 ARCHIBALD LAUD-HAMMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MARK REGER, Individually and as employee of Johnson C. Smith University, Defendant - Appellee, and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF JOHNSON C. SMITH UNIVERSITY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-18) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 22, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Archibald Laud-Hammond, Appellant Pro Se. William Porter Farthing, Jr., Stacy Kaplan Wood, John Barnwell Anderson, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Archibald Laud-Hammond appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Appellee in his discrimination action, dismissing his defamation action, dismissing the Appellee’s employer as a defendant, and denying his motion to amend his complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Laud-Hammond v. Reger, No. CA-00- 18 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 14, 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