Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Enders v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, 09-1852 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1852 Visitors: 30
Filed: Jan. 25, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1852 MATTHEW ENDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INCORPORATED; THE PARKSITE GROUP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:08-cv-03211-JFM; 1:08-cv-03042-JFM) Submitted: January 8, 2010 Decided: January 25, 2010 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1852 MATTHEW ENDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS, INCORPORATED; THE PARKSITE GROUP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:08-cv-03211-JFM; 1:08-cv-03042-JFM) Submitted: January 8, 2010 Decided: January 25, 2010 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Matthew Enders, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsey Hager McGinnis, LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., McLean, Virginia; James R. Pranger, NEAL, GERBER AND EISENBERG, LLC, Chicago, Illinois; Steven D. Silverman, Andrew Clayton White, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Matthew Enders appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Appellees. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Enders v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., Nos. 1:08-cv-03211-JFM; 1:08-cv-03042-JFM (D. Md. July 16, 2009). We deny as moot Enders’ motion to expedite and 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