Timothy Jackson v. FUJIFILM Manufacturing USA Inc.

447 F. App'x 515
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 29, 2011
Docket11-1129, 11-1131
StatusUnpublished

This text of 447 F. App'x 515 (Timothy Jackson v. FUJIFILM Manufacturing USA 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
Timothy Jackson v. FUJIFILM Manufacturing USA Inc., 447 F. App'x 515 (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In No. 11-1129, Timothy A. Jackson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment to the Defendant in this action alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that Jackson failed to meet his burden of showing that, within the relevant time period, he suffered from a disability and was entitled to the protections of the ADA. Jackson presented no evidence demonstrating that he was substantially limited in a major life activity during this period. See Pollard v. High’s of Baltimore, Inc., 281 F.3d 462, 467 (4th Cir.2002); Rhoads v. FDIC, 257 F.3d 373, 387 (4th Cir.2001). We accordingly affirm. *

In No. 11-1131, Jackson appeals the district court’s order dismissing the action on the basis of res judicata. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jackson v. Fuji Photo Film, Inc., No. 8:10-cv-01403-JMC, 2011 WL 497462 (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 2011).

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.

*

"We are not limited to evaluation of the grounds offered by the district court to support its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.” United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 519 (4th Cir.2005).

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

Related

Rhoads v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
257 F.3d 373 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
Mary D. Pollard v. High's of Baltimore, Incorporated
281 F.3d 462 (Fourth Circuit, 2002)
United States v. Terrence Ormstom Smith
395 F.3d 516 (Fourth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
447 F. App'x 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-jackson-v-fujifilm-manufacturing-usa-inc-ca4-2011.