Lee v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

Fourth Circuit

Lee v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

670 F. App'x 777

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 21, 2016·No. No. 16-1675·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles T. Lee appeals the district court’s order granting the Appellee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lee v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 1:13-cv-00004-MR-DSC, 187 F.Supp.3d 623, 2016 WL 2746626 (W.D.N.C. May 11, 2016). 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Charles T. Lee appeals the district court’s order granting the Appellee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lee v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 1:13-cv-00004-MR-DSC, 187 F.Supp.3d 623, 2016 WL 2746626 (W.D.N.C. May 11, 2016). 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

Lee v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 670 F. App'x 777 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

670 F. App'x 777 (Lee v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related