Filed: Jun. 23, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2370 MICHAEL LADALE REEVES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NUVOX COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:08-cv-04031-HMH) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2370 MICHAEL LADALE REEVES, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NUVOX COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:08-cv-04031-HMH) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2370
MICHAEL LADALE REEVES,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
NUVOX COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:08-cv-04031-HMH)
Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Ladale Reeves, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edgar
McDonald, III, John Timothy Merrell, Madison Baker Wyche, III,
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Ladale Reeves appeals the district court’s
order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant
Defendant’s summary judgment motion on his discrimination and
retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 to § 12213 (West 2005 & Supp. 2010).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See
Reeves v. Nuvox Commc’ns, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-04031-HMH (D.S.C.
Nov. 18, 2009). 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