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)
04-1421•Charles K. Hamilton v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation
04-1421Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 17, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1421
CHARLES K. HAMILTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PILGRIM’S PRIDE CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-9-2)
Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 17, 2004
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles K. Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Leroy Fitch, Thomas
Edward Ullrich, WHARTON, ALDHIZER & WEAVER, Harrisonburg, Virginia.
Peter Gregory Zurbuch, BUSCH & TALBOTT, Elkins, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Charles K. Hamilton appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on his complaint
alleging excessive exposure to carbon monoxide. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the district court. See Hamilton v. Pilgrim’s
Pride Corp., No. CA-03-9-2 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 29, 2004). 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.