Filed: Apr. 27, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1073 DAVID BETHEA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BLANCHARD & JOHNSON TRANSPORTATION, Defendant – Appellee, and DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:07-cv-02257-RBH) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1073 DAVID BETHEA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BLANCHARD & JOHNSON TRANSPORTATION, Defendant – Appellee, and DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:07-cv-02257-RBH) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1073 DAVID BETHEA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BLANCHARD & JOHNSON TRANSPORTATION, Defendant – Appellee, and DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:07-cv-02257-RBH) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Bethea, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Bethea appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bethea v. Blanchard & Johnson Transp., No. 4:07-cv-02257-RBH (D.S.C. Aug. 25, 2008; Dec. 28, 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
