Filed: Jul. 25, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1205 JESSE LOWELL SATTERFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-191-1) Submitted: June 24, 2005 Decided: July 25, 2005 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Af
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1205 JESSE LOWELL SATTERFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-191-1) Submitted: June 24, 2005 Decided: July 25, 2005 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Aff..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1205 JESSE LOWELL SATTERFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-191-1) Submitted: June 24, 2005 Decided: July 25, 2005 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jesse Lowell Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se. Doren Burrell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jesse Lowell Satterfield appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for leave to amend the complaint and to alter or amend the judgment in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Satterfield v. West Virginia Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. CA-02-191-1 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 18, 2005). 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 -