Taylor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 20, 2005
Docket05-1884
StatusUnpublished

This text of Taylor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc (Taylor v. Wal-Mart Stores, 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
Taylor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1884

SCOTT ROSS TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED AND DIVISIONS AND SUBSIDIARIES,

Defendant - Appellee,

JOHN PAUL REASON, Officer and Board of Director Wal-Mart Stores; H. LEE SCOTT, President and CEO Wal-Mart Stores; G. DAVID PASSMORE, Facilities Maintenance Director Reality Department; OTHER DEFENDANTS YET UNNAMED AT THE COMPANY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-86)

Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 20, 2005

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott Ross Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Constantinos George Panagopoulos, BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Scott Ross Taylor appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in his

civil action challenging his termination from employment and

raising several related claims. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See Taylor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

No. CA-03-86 (E.D. Va. July 13, 2005). 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

- 3 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Taylor v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-wal-mart-stores-inc-ca4-2005.