Filed: Apr. 11, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1926 CARL KLUNK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. COST, INCORPORATED; PARSONS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (1:05-cv-01262-TSE) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1926 CARL KLUNK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. COST, INCORPORATED; PARSONS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (1:05-cv-01262-TSE) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1926 CARL KLUNK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus U.S. COST, INCORPORATED; PARSONS MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (1:05-cv-01262-TSE) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dean E. Wanderer, DEAN E. WANDERER & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Gregory J. Digel, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Kathleen M. Williams, EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carl Klunk appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated from the bench by the district court. Klunk v. U.S. Cost, Inc., No. 1:05-cv-01262-TSE (E.D. Va. July 21, 2006). 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 -