Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Michael Owens v. Dillard's, 16-1441 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1441 Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1441 MICHAEL EUGENE OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DILLARD’S, Defendant – Appellee, and WILLIAM T. DILLARD, II; HIGBEE LANCOMS, LP; JIM GREEN, Store Manager; PAUL CLOSE, Assistant Manager; KEITH WHITE, District Manager, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00433-FDW-DCK) Submitted: August 30, 2016
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1441 MICHAEL EUGENE OWENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DILLARD’S, Defendant – Appellee, and WILLIAM T. DILLARD, II; HIGBEE LANCOMS, LP; JIM GREEN, Store Manager; PAUL CLOSE, Assistant Manager; KEITH WHITE, District Manager, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00433-FDW-DCK) Submitted: August 30, 2016 Decided: September 8, 2016 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Eugene Owens, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Ruth Dangel, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael Eugene Owens appeals the district court’s order denying Owens’ motion to set aside an arbitration award. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Owens v. Dillard’s, No. 3:14-cv-00433-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2016). We deny Owens’ motions to subpoena for interrogatories, for production of documents, for a transcript at Government expense, and for lay and expert witnesses. We grant Dillard’s motion to strike Owens’ press release and deny Dillard’s motion for sanctions. 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