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)
04-1167•Donald R. Baker v. Lucent Technologies, Incorporated
04-1167Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit09.09.2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1167
DONALD R. BAKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman,
District Judge. (CA-03-133)
Submitted: August 18, 2004 Decided: September 9, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oldric J. LaBell, Jr., Newport News, Virginia, for Appellant.
George B. Breen, Frank C. Morris, Jr., EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN,
P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Donald R. Baker appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his breach of employment contract action for failure to
state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Baker v. Lucent Tech., Inc., No. CA-03-133
(E.D. Va. Jan. 14, 2004). We deny Baker’s motion to certify issues
to the Supreme Court of Virginia. 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.