Cromer v. Kraft Foods, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Cromer v. Kraft Foods, Inc.

89 F. App'x 385

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cromer v. Kraft Foods, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 19 F. App'x 147 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided February 25, 2004·No. 03-2424·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Donald G. Cromer appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his employment discrimination complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Cromer v. Kraft Foods, Inc., No. CA-03-346-3 (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 15, 2003 & entered Sept. 16, 2003; filed Oct. 23, 2003 & entered Oct. 24, 2003). 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

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

PER CURIAM.

Donald G. Cromer appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his employment discrimination complaint and denying his motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Cromer v. Kraft Foods, Inc., No. CA-03-346-3 (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 15, 2003 & entered Sept. 16, 2003; filed Oct. 23, 2003 & entered Oct. 24, 2003). 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

Cromer v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 89 F. App'x 385 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

89 F. App'x 385 (Cromer v. Kraft Foods, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.