Filed: Jun. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1287 MARK KEVIN MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAL-MART, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-00046-MOC-DLH) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Kevin Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Juli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1287 MARK KEVIN MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAL-MART, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-00046-MOC-DLH) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Kevin Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Julie..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1287 MARK KEVIN MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAL-MART, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:13-cv-00046-MOC-DLH) Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 22, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Kevin Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Kerr Adams, Angela Byrd Cummings, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Kevin Miller appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant Wal-Mart in his civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Miller v. Wal-Mart, No. 1:13-cv-00046-MOC-DLH (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2015). 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
