Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harris v. Sprint United Mgmt, 03-1967 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1967 Visitors: 31
Filed: Feb. 10, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1967 MICHAEL E. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SPRINT UNITED MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and WILLIAM T. ESREY, CCEO; JIM KISSINGER, VP; RONALD E. GIER, VP; NESA RAE HELM; STEPHANIE BLAINE; NANCY PELFRESNE; CYNTHIA FISHER; LYNN SMICHK, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-02-1239-A) Submit
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1967 MICHAEL E. HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SPRINT UNITED MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and WILLIAM T. ESREY, CCEO; JIM KISSINGER, VP; RONALD E. GIER, VP; NESA RAE HELM; STEPHANIE BLAINE; NANCY PELFRESNE; CYNTHIA FISHER; LYNN SMICHK, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-02-1239-A) Submitted: January 21, 2004 Decided: February 10, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Frederick Walters, SEYFARTH SHAW, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Michael E. Harris appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Sprint United Management, Inc., in this action filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Harris v. Sprint United Management, Inc., No. CA-02-1239-A (E.D. Va. filed June 19, 2003 & entered June 23, 2003). 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