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)
01-2412•Timothy S. Brandon v. City of Richmond, Virginia
01-2412Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 23, 2002
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2412
TIMOTHY S. BRANDON; WILLIAM L. DEW,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA; CALVIN JAMISON,
City Manager for the City of Richmond; JACK
MCELFISH, Fire Chief of the City of Richmond;
JOHN TUNSTALL, Division Fire Chief for the
City of Richmond; LARRY TUNSTALL, Division
Fire Chief for the City of Richmond,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Dennis W. Dohnal, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-00-874-3)
Submitted: September 12, 2002 Decided: September 23, 2002
Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert P. Geary, Richmond, Virginia; William S. Francis, Jr.,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Beverly A. Burton, Senior
Assistant City Attorney, Keith A. May, Assistant City Attorney,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
-- 1 of 2 --
* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Timothy S. Brandon and William L. Dew appeal the magistrate
judge’s order denying relief on their employment discrimination
action. We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s
opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the magistrate judge. * See Brandon v. City of Richmond,
No. CA-00-874-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 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.