Filed: May 03, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2511 ANTHONY L. SCALES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus USF LOGISTICS; JILL PINTOZZI; RANDY HLADKY; CHRIS JENNINGS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-04-448) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthon
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2511 ANTHONY L. SCALES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus USF LOGISTICS; JILL PINTOZZI; RANDY HLADKY; CHRIS JENNINGS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-04-448) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2511 ANTHONY L. SCALES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus USF LOGISTICS; JILL PINTOZZI; RANDY HLADKY; CHRIS JENNINGS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-04-448) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony L. Scales, Appellant Pro Se. Mildred Bennett Wells, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Kristine Elizabeth Aubin, CONNELLY, SHEEHAN, HARRIS, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony L. Scales appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants and dismissing Scales’ Title VII action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Scales v. USF Logistics, No. CA-04-448 (E.D. Va. Dec. 3, 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 -
