Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Seawright v. Greenville County, 05-1239 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1239 Visitors: 22
Filed: Jun. 14, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1239 JAMES EDWARD SEAWRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREENVILLE COUNTY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-1669-HMH-03) Submitted: March 30, 2007 Decided: June 14, 2007 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Seawright
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1239 JAMES EDWARD SEAWRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREENVILLE COUNTY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-1669-HMH-03) Submitted: March 30, 2007 Decided: June 14, 2007 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Seawright, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edgar McDonald, III, Jeffrey Parker Dunlaevy, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Edward Seawright appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Defendant in this action alleging wrongful termination in violation of both South Carolina law and 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. Seawright v. Greenville Co., No. CA-03-1669-HMH-03 (D.S.C. Jan. 31, 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 -
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