Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Nance v. Potter, 02-2266 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2266 Visitors: 27
Filed: Mar. 02, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2266 RONALD I. NANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-1083-1) Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: March 2, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2266 RONALD I. NANCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN POTTER, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-1083-1) Submitted: November 26, 2003 Decided: March 2, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Romallus O. Murphy, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lynne P. Klauer, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Eric J. Scharf, Stephan J. Boardman, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Ronald I. Nance appeals from the district court’s order awarding summary judgment to the Postal Service on his employment discrimination complaint. Our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. The doctrine of res judicata bars the only claim Nance advances on appeal -- a claim of Rehabilitation Act discrimination. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nance v. Potter, No. CA-01-1083-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 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