Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Steven Ferrell, Sr. v. Babcock & Wilcox, Co., 13-2075 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-2075 Visitors: 29
Filed: Jan. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2075 STEVEN WILLIAM FERRELL, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BABCOCK & WILCOX, CO., Defendant - Appellee, and E. JAMES FERLAND, President & CEO; PAYTON S. BAKER, President- NOG; BARRY CANDOR, Manager of IT-NOG; MICHAEL PAUL, Manager of IT-NOG; BRIAN QUICK, Manager of IT- NOG; NATHANIEL X. MARSHALL, EEOC-NOG, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2075 STEVEN WILLIAM FERRELL, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BABCOCK & WILCOX, CO., Defendant - Appellee, and E. JAMES FERLAND, President & CEO; PAYTON S. BAKER, President- NOG; BARRY CANDOR, Manager of IT--NOG; MICHAEL PAUL, Manager of IT--NOG; BRIAN QUICK, Manager of IT-- NOG; NATHANIEL X. MARSHALL, EEOC--NOG, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:12-cv-00048-NKM-RSB) Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 23, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven William Ferrell, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven David Brown, Joan McKenna, LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Steven William Ferrell, Sr., appeals the district court’s order granting Babcock & Wilcox’s motion for summary judgment and denying Ferrell’s motion to compel. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ferrell v. Babcock & Wilcox, Co., No. 6:12-cv-00048-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2013). 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