Filed: Oct. 14, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1611 HENRY LEWIS ASTROP, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ECKERD CORPORATION; RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00681-RLW) Submitted: October 6, 2010 Decided: October 14, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hen
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1611 HENRY LEWIS ASTROP, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ECKERD CORPORATION; RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00681-RLW) Submitted: October 6, 2010 Decided: October 14, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1611 HENRY LEWIS ASTROP, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ECKERD CORPORATION; RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00681-RLW) Submitted: October 6, 2010 Decided: October 14, 2010 Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Henry Lewis Astrop, Appellant Pro Se. Dannel Charles Duddy, William Tiller, TILLER LAW GROUP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Henry Lewis Astrop appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Astrop v. Eckerd Corp., No. 3:09-cv-00681-RLW (E.D. Va. Apr. 29 & 30, 2010). 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
