Atwood v. CertainTeed Corp.

Fourth Circuit

Atwood v. CertainTeed Corp.

586 F. App'x 157

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 9, 2014

DocketNo. 14-1407

StatusPublished

This text of 586 F. App'x 157 (Atwood v. CertainTeed Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atwood v. CertainTeed Corp., 586 F. App'x 157 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian L. Atwood appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of CertainTeed Corporation and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) in his civil action claiming that Cer-tainTeed violated the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act and breached the parties’ nondisclosure agreement. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Atwood v. CertainTeed Corp., No. 1:13-cv-01006-CMH-JFA (E.D.Va. filed Mar. 5, 2014, entered Mar. 6, 2014; Apr. 4, 2014). Atwood’s motion to supplement the record is denied. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian L. Atwood appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of CertainTeed Corporation and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) in his civil action claiming that Cer-tainTeed violated the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act and breached the parties’ nondisclosure agreement. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Atwood v. CertainTeed Corp., No. 1:13-cv-01006-CMH-JFA (E.D.Va. filed Mar. 5, 2014, entered Mar. 6, 2014; Apr. 4, 2014). Atwood’s motion to supplement the record is denied. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

586 F. App'x 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atwood-v-certainteed-corp-ca4-2014.