Filed: Aug. 23, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1506 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA- 03-484-RBH) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher La
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1506 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA- 03-484-RBH) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Law..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1506 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (CA- 03-484-RBH) Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 23, 2005 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Franklin Thompson, Jr., MALONE, THOMPSON & SUMMERS, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher Lawrence appeals a district court judgment adopting a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting summary judgment to Westinghouse Savannah River Company LLC and dismissing Lawrence’s complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Lawrence v. Westinghouse, No. CA-03-484-RBH (D.S.C. Apr. 4, 2005). We deny Lawrence’s motion to strike the Appellee’s informal brief. 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 -