Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Pastene v. Beaufort County School District, 04-1346 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1346 Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1346 ALEXANDER PASTENE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BEAUFORT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; HERMAN GAITHER; CALVIN WHITE; OTIS SMITH; CARL SIMMONS; MARK SEIGLE; HERBERT GLAZE; WILLIAM EVANS; RICHARD MCCLURE; OFFICER HAYES, Beaufort Police; CITY OF BEAUFORT POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1346 ALEXANDER PASTENE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BEAUFORT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; HERMAN GAITHER; CALVIN WHITE; OTIS SMITH; CARL SIMMONS; MARK SEIGLE; HERBERT GLAZE; WILLIAM EVANS; RICHARD MCCLURE; OFFICER HAYES, Beaufort Police; CITY OF BEAUFORT POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-02-3880-9-2-23) Submitted: August 25, 2004 Decided: September 3, 2004 Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Pastene, Appellant Pro Se. Darra James Coleman, WOODS & GIVENS, L.L.P., Lexington, South Carolina, Mary Bass Lohr, HOWELL, GIBSON & HUGHES, P.A., Beaufort, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Alexander Pastene appeals the district court’s order adopting in part the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary judgment to Defendants in Pastene’s employment discrimination suit. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pastene v. Beaufort County Sch. Dist., No. CA-02-3880-9-2-23 (D.S.C. Jan. 28, 2004). 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