From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Starnes v. Veeder-Root

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Aug 4, 2017
No. 17-1411 (4th Cir. Aug. 4, 2017)

Opinion

No. 17-1411

08-04-2017

DE' ANDRE STARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GILBARCO VEEDER-ROOT, Defendant - Appellee.

De' Andre Starnes, Appellant Pro Se. James Marion Powell, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cv-01002-WO-LPA) Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. De' Andre Starnes, Appellant Pro Se. James Marion Powell, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

De' Andre Starnes appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to his former employer. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Starnes' motion for leave to file an amended informal brief, deny the motion to appoint counsel, and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Starnes v. Veeder-Root, No. 1:15-cv-01002-WO-LPA (M.D.N.C. Mar. 7, 2017). 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


Summaries of

Starnes v. Veeder-Root

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Aug 4, 2017
No. 17-1411 (4th Cir. Aug. 4, 2017)
Case details for

Starnes v. Veeder-Root

Case Details

Full title:DE' ANDRE STARNES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GILBARCO VEEDER-ROOT…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 4, 2017

Citations

No. 17-1411 (4th Cir. Aug. 4, 2017)

Citing Cases

Hunter v. Town of Mocksville

Local Rule 7.3 allows only for the filing of a motion, a response, and a reply. Starnes v. Veeder–Root, No.…