Filed: Jun. 25, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1343 JAMES JONES, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. G.E. GAS TURBINES LLC, Greenville, Defendant - Appellee, and G.E. ENERGY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:11-cv-02693-HMH) Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1343 JAMES JONES, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. G.E. GAS TURBINES LLC, Greenville, Defendant - Appellee, and G.E. ENERGY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:11-cv-02693-HMH) Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1343 JAMES JONES, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. G.E. GAS TURBINES LLC, Greenville, Defendant - Appellee, and G.E. ENERGY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:11-cv-02693-HMH) Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: June 25, 2013 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Jones, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edgar McDonald, III, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Jones, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of G.E. Gas Turbines LLC on Jones’ discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006 & Supp. IV 2010), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. 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