Bryan Atwood v. CertainTeed Corporation

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to supplement [999462442-2] record. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-01006-CMH-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999489536]. [14-1407]

Appeal: 14-1407

Doc: 25

Filed: 12/09/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1407

BRYAN L. ATWOOD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation authorized
to transact business in the State of Virginia,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01006-CMH-JFA)

Submitted:

November 7, 2014

Decided:

December 9, 2014

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick D. Greco, GRECO & GRECO, P.C., McLean, Virginia, for
Appellant.
M. Kelly Tillery, Sean P. McConnell, PEPPER &
HAMILTON, LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Matthew D. Foster,
PEPPER & HAMILTON, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1407

Doc: 25

Filed: 12/09/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Brian L. Atwood appeals the district court’s orders
granting summary judgment in favor of CertainTeed Corporation
and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) in his civil action claiming that
CertainTeed violated the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act and
breached the parties’ nondisclosure agreement.
the

parties’

briefs

reversible error.

and

the

record

on

We have reviewed

appeal

and

find

no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

Atwood v. CertainTeed Corp., No. 1:13-

cv-01006-CMH-JFA (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 5, 2014, entered Mar. 6,
2014; Apr. 4, 2014).
is denied.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

Atwood’s motion to supplement the record

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

2