Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Artis v. Newport News Shipbuilding, 08-2354 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-2354 Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 20, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2354 MICHAEL ANDRE ARTIS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK COMPANY, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (4:07-cv-00054-RBS-JEB) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2354 MICHAEL ANDRE ARTIS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK COMPANY, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (4:07-cv-00054-RBS-JEB) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 20, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Andre Artis, Appellant Pro Se. Kurt George Larkin, Hill B. Wellford, Jr., HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Andre Artis appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to grant Defendant’s summary judgment motion on his claims asserting unlawful discharge and retaliatory refusal to rehire, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), the Labor and Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (2006), and Virginia law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Artis’s motion for production of transcript at government expense and affirm the district court’s order. See Artis v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co., No. 4:07-cv-00054-RBS-JEB (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 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