Gary E. McClain v. Pactiv Corporation

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-2003
GARY E. MCCLAIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PACTIV CORPORATION; HOWARD SELLERS; TIM
RANDALL; JODY ROWLAND; JOSEPH P. BERLEY; LINDA
MILTON; JOE POWELL; DOUG BOYNTON; LARRY
WONOSKI; JOE GARRISON; RON CLARK; ROBIN
MONTGOMERY,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
TENNECO PACKAGING, INCORPORATED; DAWN PRICE;
MARTIN JAMES,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge.
(CA-99-3710-1-22)
Submitted: February 25, 2002 Decided: March 11, 2002
Before MOTZ and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
J. Dennis Bolt, BOLT LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Vinton D. Lide, VINTON D. LIDE & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.,
Lexington, South Carolina; Paul H. Derrick, Kristin E. Toussaint,
JACKSON, LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gary McClain appeals the district court’s order granting the
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983
(West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According-
ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McClain
v. Pactiv Corp., No. CA-99-3710-1-22 (D.S.C. July 13, 2001). We
deny the Appellees’ renewed motions to strike the record as moot.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --