Filed: Jul. 24, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2512 ROGER DEAN BANDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:11-cv-00365-JCT) Submitted: July 12, 2013 Decided: July 24, 2013 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas E. St
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2512 ROGER DEAN BANDY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:11-cv-00365-JCT) Submitted: July 12, 2013 Decided: July 24, 2013 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas E. Str..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2512
ROGER DEAN BANDY,
Plaintiff − Appellant,
v.
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant − Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00365-JCT)
Submitted: July 12, 2013 Decided: July 24, 2013
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas E. Strelka, STRICKLAND, DIVINEY & STRELKA, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellant. Agnis C. Chakravorty, Frank K.
Friedman, WOODS ROGERS, P.L.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Dean Bandy appeals district court orders striking
portions of his complaint and granting summary judgment against
him in his age-discrimination action against Advance Auto Parts,
Inc. See Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621
et seq. We have reviewed the record and we find no error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
See Bandy v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc.,
2012 WL 6018741 (W.D. Va.
Nov. 29, 2012); Bandy v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc.,
2012 WL
831027 (W.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2012). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2