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)
01-1250•Tommy E. Martin v. Cumulus Fibres, Incorporated
01-1250Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit28.06.2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1250
TOMMY E. MARTIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CUMULUS FIBRES, INCORPORATED; BILL NEWELL,
District Manager; LEE OSBORNE, Plant Manager,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Carl Horn, III, Chief
Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-552-3-H)
Submitted: June 8, 2001 Decided: June 28, 2001
Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tommy E. Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Hubert Ben Humphrey, Jr., Max
Daniel McGinn, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
* The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 2000).
2
PER CURIAM:
Tommy E. Martin appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting
defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s
opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See Martin v. Cumulus
Fibres, Inc., No. CA-00-552-3-H (W.D.N.C. Jan. 11, 2001). 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.