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)
11-2075•Gerald Henneghan v. Jonathan Roach
11-2075Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 21, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2075
GERALD HENNEGHAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JONATHAN ROACH; KRISTINE ROACH, a/k/a Krissy Roach, a/k/a Joy
Roach; FEDEX CORPORATION; FEDEX OFFICE,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
FREDERICK W. SMITH, Chief Executive Officer, FEDEX Corporation;
BRIAN D. PHILLIPS, Chief Executive Officer, FEDEX Corporation;
JOY ROACH,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00247-LMB-JFA)
Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 21, 2012
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Gerald Henneghan, Appellant Pro Se. Joleen Okun, OGLETREE,
DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C.; Julia
Bougie Judkins, BANCROFT, MCGAVIN, HORVATH & JUDKINS, PC,
Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Henneghan appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his amended employment discrimination complaint,
denying his motions for reconsideration, and denying various
nondispositive motions. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Henneghan v. Smith, No. 1:11-cv-00247-
LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. May 3, 2011; May 4, 2011; May 5, 2011; Sept.
1, 2011; Sept. 12, 2011; Sept. 19, 2011; Sept. 30, 2011; Oct. 3,
2011; Oct. 5, 2011). We deny Henneghan’s requests for counsel,
recusal, and other relief on appeal. 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.