Filed: Feb. 28, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1938 MILTON LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (1:07-cv-03231-MBS) Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton Lewis, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1938 MILTON LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (1:07-cv-03231-MBS) Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton Lewis, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1938 MILTON LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (1:07-cv-03231-MBS) Submitted: February 24, 2011 Decided: February 28, 2011 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Mark Kelly, Daniel Bowman White, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Milton Lewis appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and motion in limine. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lewis v. Norfolk S. Ry., Inc., No. 1:07-cv- 03231-MBS (D.S.C. July 16, 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
