Howlett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk

Fourth Circuit

Howlett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk

20 F. App'x 135

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 26, 2001

Docket00-2294

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 F. App'x 135 (Howlett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk) 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

Howlett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, 20 F. App'x 135 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Franklin D. Howlett appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment to his former employer and order denying a motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinions *136 and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Howlett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, No. CA-00-168-2 (E.D.Va. Sept. 15, 2000) (for reasons as stated from the bench); Howlett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, No. CA-00-168-2 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 9, 2001; entered Apr. 10, 2001). 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.

*

The parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.

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

PER CURIAM.

Franklin D. Howlett appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment to his former employer and order denying a motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinions *136 and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Howlett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, No. CA-00-168-2 (E.D.Va. Sept. 15, 2000) (for reasons as stated from the bench); Howlett v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, No. CA-00-168-2 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 9, 2001; entered Apr. 10, 2001). 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.

*

The parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 F. App'x 135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howlett-v-school-board-of-the-city-of-norfolk-ca4-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack