The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
01-1732•Bryan Keith Jenkins v. Nicholas Rinaldi, individually
01-1732Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 12, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1732
BRYAN KEITH JENKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NICHOLAS RINALDI, individually and in his
official capacity as Manager, Postal Distribu-
tion Center, U.S. Postal Service; IONA NOBLE,
individually and in her official capacity as
Supervisor, U.S. Postal Service; WILLIAM J.
HENDERSON, in his official capacity as Post-
master General, Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Area,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-629)
Submitted: February 1, 2002 Decided: February 12, 2002
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Knox Kent Lively III, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lynne P. Klauer, As-
sistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Eric J.
Scharf, Managing Counsel, David G. Karro, UNITED STATES POSTAL
SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Bryan Keith Jenkins appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his various claims that officials of the United States
Postal Service violated his civil rights. We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommen-
dation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Jenkins v. Rinaldi, No. CA-99-629 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 23, 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.