Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Eric Sanders v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, 18-1500 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-1500 Visitors: 85
Filed: Oct. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1500 ERIC ALAN SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant - Appellee, and EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, of Charlotte, NC; JOHN HAYWARD; MIKE CALZAREETA; DOUG FORD; RAYVON IRBY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:15-cv-02313-JMC) Submitted: September 28, 2018 Decided: October 1
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1500 ERIC ALAN SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, Defendant - Appellee, and EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, of Charlotte, NC; JOHN HAYWARD; MIKE CALZAREETA; DOUG FORD; RAYVON IRBY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:15-cv-02313-JMC) Submitted: September 28, 2018 Decided: October 17, 2018 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Celeste T. Jones, William Grayson Lambert, Richard James Morgan, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Eric Alan Sanders appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, on his employment discrimination claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sanders v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs., LLC, No. 0:15-cv-02313-JMC (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 2018). We deny Sanders’ motions to dismiss, for sanctions, and for reconsideration. 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