Filed: Jan. 22, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2056 RANDOLPH L. HUNTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:07-cv-00102-D) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph L. Hunter, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2056 RANDOLPH L. HUNTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:07-cv-00102-D) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph L. Hunter, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2056 RANDOLPH L. HUNTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (5:07-cv-00102-D) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randolph L. Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Randolph L. Hunter appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Title VII complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hunter v. United Parcel Serv., No. 5:07-cv-00102-D (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 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 - 2 -
