Nance v. Potter

Fourth Circuit

Nance v. Potter

88 F. App'x 664

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Nance v. Potter. Read the opinion of the Court — 42 F. App'x 589 →

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 2, 2004·No. 02-2266·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ronald I. Nance appeals from the district court’s order awarding summary judgment to the Postal Service on his employment discrimination complaint. Our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. The doctrine of res judicata bars the only claim Nance advances on appeal—a claim of Rehabilitation Act discrimination. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nance v. Potter, No. CA-01-1083-1, 225 F.Supp.2d 638 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 2002). 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.

Ronald I. Nance appeals from the district court’s order awarding summary judgment to the Postal Service on his employment discrimination complaint. Our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. The doctrine of res judicata bars the only claim Nance advances on appeal—a claim of Rehabilitation Act discrimination. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nance v. Potter, No. CA-01-1083-1, 225 F.Supp.2d 638 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 2002). 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

Nance v. Potter, 88 F. App'x 664 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

88 F. App'x 664 (Nance v. Potter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related