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)
05-1987•Lee Kent Hempfling v. Lm Communications Incorporated, a Kentucky Corporation
05-1987Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 27, 2006
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1987
LEE KENT HEMPFLING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LM COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED, a Kentucky
Corporation; LM COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, a Kentucky
Corporation; LM COMMUNICATIONS II OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, INCORPORATED, a Kentucky
Corporation,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-04-1373-2-PMD)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lee Kent Hempfling, Appellant Pro Se. Greg Horton, BUIST, MOORE,
SMYTHE, MCGEE, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Lee Kent Hempfling appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on Hempfling’s employment discrimination action. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Hempfling v. LM Commc’ns, Inc., No. CA-04-1373-2-PMD (D.S.C.
Aug. 31, 2005). 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.