Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Maxwell v. DAK Americas, 06-1068 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1068 Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 13, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1068 CARL LESTER MAXWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAK AMERICAS; MUNDY MAINTENANCE SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00141-DCN) Submitted: January 8, 2007 Decided: February 13, 2007 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1068 CARL LESTER MAXWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DAK AMERICAS; MUNDY MAINTENANCE SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00141-DCN) Submitted: January 8, 2007 Decided: February 13, 2007 Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chalmers C. Johnson, CHALMERS JOHNSON LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stacy K. Wood, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina; Benjamin Weaver Glass, III, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carl Lester Maxwell appeals the district court’s opinion and order granting summary judgment to DAK Americas and Mundy Maintenance Services and dismissing his breach of employment contract claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Maxwell v. DAK Americas, No. 2:05-cv-00141-DCN (D.S.C. Dec. 13, 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