Filed: Nov. 16, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2375 OWEN HARTY, Individually, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LUIHN FOUR, INC., a Domestic Corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:10-cv-00107-BO) Submitted: October 20, 2011 Decided: November 16, 2011 Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2375 OWEN HARTY, Individually, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LUIHN FOUR, INC., a Domestic Corporation, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:10-cv-00107-BO) Submitted: October 20, 2011 Decided: November 16, 2011 Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2375
OWEN HARTY, Individually,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LUIHN FOUR, INC., a Domestic Corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:10-cv-00107-BO)
Submitted: October 20, 2011 Decided: November 16, 2011
Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pete Monismith, THOMAS B. BACON, P.A., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
Thomas B. Bacon, THOMAS B. BACON, P.A., Cooper City, Florida,
for Appellant. Richard S. McAtee, Paul S. Holscher, JACKSON
LEWIS LLP, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Owen Harty appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his claim arising under Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189 (2006), and
denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. Harty v. Luihn Four,
Inc., No. 5:10-cv-00107-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 13, 2010; Nov. 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