Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thompson v. Queen City Inc, 02-2105 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2105 Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 12, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2105 ROBERT THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus QUEEN CITY, INCORPORATED, a/k/a Queen City Railroad Construction, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee, and BLACK & VEATCH CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED, Third Party Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-2359-2-18) Submitted: July 29, 2003 Decided: August 12, 2003 Before
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2105 ROBERT THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus QUEEN CITY, INCORPORATED, a/k/a Queen City Railroad Construction, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee, and BLACK & VEATCH CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED, Third Party Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-2359-2-18) Submitted: July 29, 2003 Decided: August 12, 2003 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis C. Lanier, THE LANIER LAW FIRM, Orangeburg, South Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas S. Tisdale, Jr., Stephen L. Brown, YOUNG, CLEMENT, RIVERS & TISDALE, L.L.P., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Thompson appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and motion in limine and denying Thompson’s motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Thompson v. Queen City, Inc., No. CA-00-2359-2-18 (D.S.C. filed July 9, 2002 & entered July 11, 2002; filed Aug. 22, 2002 & entered Aug. 23, 2002). 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