Reeves v. Nuvox Communications, Inc.

Fourth Circuit

Reeves v. Nuvox Communications, Inc.

384 F. App'x 255

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 23, 2010

DocketNo. 09-2370

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 384 F. App'x 255 (Reeves v. Nuvox Communications, 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

Reeves v. Nuvox Communications, Inc., 384 F. App'x 255 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Ladale Reeves appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Defendant’s summary judgment motion on his discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 to § 12213 (West 2005 & Supp. 2010). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See Reeves v. Nuvox Commc’ns, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-04031-HMH, 2009 WL 4016617 (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2009). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Michael Ladale Reeves appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Defendant’s summary judgment motion on his discrimination and retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 to § 12213 (West 2005 & Supp. 2010). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See Reeves v. Nuvox Commc’ns, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-04031-HMH, 2009 WL 4016617 (D.S.C. Nov. 18, 2009). 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)

384 F. App'x 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reeves-v-nuvox-communications-inc-ca4-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack