Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Hunter v. United Parcel Service, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's dismissal of Randolph Hunter's Title VII complaint against United Parcel Service. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court therefore affirmed the lower court's ruling dismissing Hunter's case for the reasons stated in its September 28, 2007 order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Hunter v. United Parcel Service, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's dismissal of Randolph Hunter's Title VII complaint against United Parcel Service. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court therefore affirmed the lower court's ruling dismissing Hunter's case for the reasons stated in its September 28, 2007 order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-01-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-2056

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's dismissal of Randolph Hunter's Title VII complaint against United Parcel Service. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court therefore affirmed the lower court's ruling dismissing Hunter's case for the reasons stated in its September 28, 2007 order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views2 pages

    Hunter v. United Parcel Service, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming the district court's dismissal of Randolph Hunter's Title VII complaint against United Parcel Service. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appeals court therefore affirmed the lower court's ruling dismissing Hunter's case for the reasons stated in its September 28, 2007 order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-2056

    RANDOLPH L. HUNTER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    James C. Dever, III,
    District Judge. (5:07-cv-00102-D)

    Submitted:

    January 17, 2008

    Decided:

    January 22, 2008

    Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Randolph L. Hunter, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Randolph L. Hunter appeals the district courts order
    dismissing his Title VII complaint.
    and find no reversible error.

    We have reviewed the record

    Accordingly, we affirm for the

    reasons stated by the district court.

    Hunter v. United Parcel

    Serv., No. 5:07-cv-00102-D (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2007).

    We dispense

    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like