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)
99-2454•Keith Miller v. Orangeburg, South Carolina Consolidated School District Five
99-2454Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 21, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2454
KEITH MILLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ORANGEBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL
DISTRICT FIVE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-98-1111-5-06BD)
Submitted: May 23, 2000 Decided: September 21, 2000
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Laura P. Valtorta, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Andrea
E. White, Thomas K. Barlow, DUFF, DUBBERLY, TURNER, WHITE & BOYKIN,
L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Keith Miller appeals the district court's order granting the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in his racial discrimina-
tion employment action. We have reviewed the record and the dis-
trict court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v.
Orangeburg South Carolina Consol. Sch. Dist. Five, No. CA-98-1111-
5-06BD (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 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.