Thomas Gladney v. Southern Railway Company, and Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees

956 F.2d 1162, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 10515, 1992 WL 44808
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 10, 1992
Docket91-1598
StatusUnpublished

This text of 956 F.2d 1162 (Thomas Gladney v. Southern Railway Company, and Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees) 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
Thomas Gladney v. Southern Railway Company, and Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, 956 F.2d 1162, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 10515, 1992 WL 44808 (4th Cir. 1992).

Opinion

956 F.2d 1162

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Thomas GLADNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee,
and
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, Defendant.

No. 91-1598.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 24, 1992.
Decided March 10, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., District Judge. (CA-84-3193-3-OB)

Thomas Gladney, appellant pro se.

Frank Huger Gibbes, III, Gibbes & Clarkson, Greenville, S.C., for appellee.

D.S.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Gladney appeals the district court's denial of Gladney's motion to reopen this employment discrimination action. Our review of the record and other materials before us establishes that there was no abuse of discretion. See Green v. Foley, 856 F.2d 660, 665 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1031 (1989). 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.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
956 F.2d 1162, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 10515, 1992 WL 44808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-gladney-v-southern-railway-company-and-brotherhood-of-maintenance-ca4-1992.