Osborne v. Slater
This text of Osborne v. Slater (Osborne v. Slater) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1316
PHILLIP SCOTT OSBORNE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
RODNEY E. SLATER, Honorable, Secretary of Transportation; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-00-2604-6)
Submitted: July 18, 2002 Decided: July 23, 2002
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip Scott Osborne, Appellant Pro Se. Terri Hearn Bailey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Phillip Scott Osborne appeals the district court’s order
granting the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in his
employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Osborne v.
Slater, No. CA-00-2604-6 (D.S.C. Feb. 26, 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Osborne v. Slater, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-slater-ca4-2002.