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)
99-2246•Burtrice D. Best v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Durham, Incorporated
99-2246Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 25, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2246
BURTRICE D. BEST,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF DURHAM, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-98-697-5-H)
Submitted: March 20, 2000 Decided: April 25, 2000
Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Burtrice D. Best, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Jo Korando, Zebulon
Dyer Anderson, SMITH, ANDERSON, BLOUNT, DORSETT, MITCHELL &
JERNIGAN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Burtrice D. Best appeals the district court’s order granting
the Appellant’s motion for summary judgment in his employment dis-
crimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See
Best v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., No. CA-98-697-5-H (E.D.N.C. Aug.
12, 1999). 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.