Skipper v. Cobb Vantress, Inc.

Filing 920070918


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1432 HAROLD SKIPPER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COBB VANTRESS, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:05-cv-0076) Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 18, 2007 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Skipper, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Stancil Phifer, Katherine Rigby Shook, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harold Skipper appeals the district court's orders denying his request for appointment of counsel and granting summary judgment in his employment discrimination action in favor of his former employer, Cobb-Vantress, Inc. and find no reversible error.* We have reviewed the record Accordingly, we affirm for the Skipper v. Cobb-Vantress, reasons stated by the district court. Inc., No. 3:05-cv-00076 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26 & 27, 2007). 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 In his informal brief, Skipper alleged that defense counsel had an ex parte meeting with the district court judge, and that the district court failed to review the evidence prior to granting summary judgment. However, Skipper has provided no evidence to support these claims and has failed to identify any materials that were not reviewed by the district court. Accordingly, we find Skipper's claims to be meritless. - 2 - *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?