Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ronald Washington v. Kroger Limited Partnership I, 12-2524 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-2524 Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2524 RONALD D. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00074-NKM-JGW) Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013 Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Ci
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2524 RONALD D. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KROGER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00074-NKM-JGW) Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013 Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald D. Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Connor Crook, III, BOYLE, BAIN, REBACK & SLAYTON, Charlottesville, Virginia; Christopher S. Griesmeyer, GREIMAN ROME & GRIESMEYER, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Ronald D. Washington appeals the district court’s order denying relief in his employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v. Kroger Ltd. P’ship I, No. 3:11-cv-00074- NKM-JGW (W.D. Va. Dec. 4, 2012). Appellee’s motions to strike Washington’s addendum to his informal brief and for sanctions are denied. 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 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