Pressley v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

Fourth Circuit

Pressley v. South Carolina Department of Corrections

63 F. App'x 151

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 20, 2003·No. No. 02-2276·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Thomas M. Pressley appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer, the South Carolina Department of Corrections, on his claims arising under Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp.2002), and the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, [152] we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pressley v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-00-3965-6-24-BG (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Thomas M. Pressley appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer, the South Carolina Department of Corrections, on his claims arising under Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp.2002), and the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, [152] we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pressley v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-00-3965-6-24-BG (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 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.

Pressley v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 63 F. App'x 151 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

63 F. App'x 151 (Pressley v. South Carolina Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related