Milton Thorpe v. Mechanicsville Concrete, LLC
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999011636-2] Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00797-JRS-DJN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999080754]. Mailed to: Thorpe. [12-1535]
Appeal: 12-1535
Doc: 19
Filed: 04/05/2013
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1535
MILTON D. THORPE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MECHANICSVILLE CONCRETE, LLC, d/b/a Powhatan Ready Mix,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00797-JRS-DJN)
Submitted:
March 18, 2013
Decided:
April 5, 2013
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Milton D. Thorpe, Appellant Pro Se. Lynn Forgrieve Jacob, James
Nelson Wilkinson, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-1535
Doc: 19
Filed: 04/05/2013
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Milton D. Thorpe appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Defendant in his civil action under
the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, Title VII of Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17
(West 2003 & Supp. 2012), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (2006).
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
we
affirm
for
the
reasons
stated
by
the
We have
Accordingly,
district
court.
Thorpe v. Mechanicsville Concrete, LLC, No. 3:10-cv-00797-JRSDJN (E.D. Va. Mar. 26, 2012).
We deny Thorpe’s motion for
appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
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?