Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Witcher v. Bayer CropScience USA LP, 08-1614 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1614 Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 12, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1614 KEVIN E. WITCHER; BOBBY BURNS, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE USA LP, Its agents, employees and those in concert with, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:06-cv-00947) Submitted: February 18, 2009 Decided: March 12, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. A
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1614 KEVIN E. WITCHER; BOBBY BURNS, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE USA LP, Its agents, employees and those in concert with, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (2:06-cv-00947) Submitted: February 18, 2009 Decided: March 12, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eunice L. Green, GREEN LAW FIRM, Dunbar, West Virginia, for Appellants. Joseph M. Price, Mark H. Hayes, ROBINSON & MCELWEE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin E. Witcher and Bobby Burns appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion on their retaliation, racial discrimination and hostile work environment claims, brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000) (“Title VII”), and West Virginia law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Witcher v. Bayer CropScience USA LP, No. 2:06-cv-00947 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 14, 2008). 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