Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Todd Campbell v. Verizon Virginia, Incorporated, 11-2112 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-2112 Visitors: 56
Filed: Jun. 18, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2112 TODD V. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VERIZON VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, Defendant – Appellee, and VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Dennis W. Dohnal, Magistrate Judge. (3:11-cv-00002-DWD) Submitted: June 11, 2012 Decided: June 18, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2112 TODD V. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VERIZON VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED, Defendant – Appellee, and VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Dennis W. Dohnal, Magistrate Judge. (3:11-cv-00002-DWD) Submitted: June 11, 2012 Decided: June 18, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. W. Barry Montgomery, KALBAUGH, PFUND & MESSERSMITH, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephanie Ploszay Karn, Briton K. Nelson, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Todd V. Campbell appeals the magistrate judge’s order * granting summary judgment on his interference and retaliation claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Campbell v. Verizon Va., Inc., No. 3:11-cv- 00002-DWD (E.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2011) 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 * With the consent of the parties, the magistrate judge exercised jurisdiction over this litigation, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2006). 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer