Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
00-2117•Emar Ifediora v. Wackenhut Security
00-2117Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit06.12.2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2117
EMAR IFEDIORA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WACKENHUT SECURITY; IBM CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MIKE FISHER; JOE VALENCIA,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-99-217-5-H)
Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 6, 2000
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Emar Ifediora, Appellant Pro Se. Fred Marshall Wood, Jr., MCGUIRE,
WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina; Michael
Terry Medford, MANNING, FULTON & SKINNER, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Emar Ifediora appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Ifediora v. Wackenhut Sec., No. CA-99-217-5-H (E.D.N.C.
Aug. 10, 2000). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.