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)
06-1838•Jesse Lowell Satterfield v. United States Department of Labor
06-1838Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 30, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1838
JESSE LOWELL SATTERFIELD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; MINE SAFETY
AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (1:03-cv-00165-IMK)
Submitted: January 12, 2007 Decided: January 30, 2007
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesse Lowell Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel W. Dickinson,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Jesse Lowell Satterfield appeals the district court’s
orders granting the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and
denying Satterfield’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions in this
employment discrimination case. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Satterfield v. Chao, No. 1:03-
cv-00165-IMK (N.D. W. Va. Apr. 25 and June 13, 2006). 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.