Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Skipper v. Cobb Vantress, Inc., 07-1432 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1432 Visitors: 16
Filed: Sep. 18, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1432 HAROLD SKIPPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COBB VANTRESS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cv-0076) Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 18, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1432 HAROLD SKIPPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COBB VANTRESS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cv-0076) Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 18, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Skipper, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Stancil Phifer, Katherine Rigby Shook, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harold Skipper appeals the district court’s orders denying his request for appointment of counsel and granting summary judgment in his employment discrimination action in favor of his former employer, Cobb-Vantress, Inc. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Skipper v. Cobb-Vantress, Inc., No. 3:05-cv-00076 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26 & 27, 2007). 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 * In his informal brief, Skipper alleged that defense counsel had an ex parte meeting with the district court judge, and that the district court failed to review the evidence prior to granting summary judgment. However, Skipper has provided no evidence to support these claims and has failed to identify any materials that were not reviewed by the district court. Accordingly, we find Skipper’s claims to be meritless. - 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