Jarvis v. Fedex Office & Print Services, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Jarvis v. Fedex Office & Print Services, Inc.

442 F. App'x 71

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 2, 2011

DocketNo. 11-1214

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 442 F. App'x 71 (Jarvis v. Fedex Office & Print Services, Inc.) 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

Jarvis v. Fedex Office & Print Services, Inc., 442 F. App'x 71 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Derek N. Jarvis appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider and granting summary judgment against him in his civil action. On appeal, Jarvis contests the denial of his [72]*72motion to reconsider the court’s earlier denial of his spoliation of evidence claim, and the denial of his claim of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jarvis v. FedEx Office & Print Servs., Inc., No. 08-1694, 2011 WL 826796 (D.Md. Mar. 7, 2011). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Derek N. Jarvis appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider and granting summary judgment against him in his civil action. On appeal, Jarvis contests the denial of his [72]*72motion to reconsider the court’s earlier denial of his spoliation of evidence claim, and the denial of his claim of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jarvis v. FedEx Office & Print Servs., Inc., No. 08-1694, 2011 WL 826796 (D.Md. Mar. 7, 2011). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 F. App'x 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarvis-v-fedex-office-print-services-inc-ca4-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack