Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Edwards v. Newport News Shipbld, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    Otis Edwards appealed the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his employment discrimination lawsuit against Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and Local Union 8888. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the dismissal. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-09-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-1592

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Otis Edwards appealed the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his employment discrimination lawsuit against Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and Local Union 8888. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the dismissal. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views3 pages

    Edwards v. Newport News Shipbld, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Otis Edwards appealed the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his employment discrimination lawsuit against Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and Local Union 8888. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error in the dismissal. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, determining the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-1592

    OTIS O. EDWARDS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK
    COMPANY; LOCAL UNION 8888, UNITED STEELWORKERS
    OF AMERICA,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Jerome B. Friedman,
    District Judge. (CA-97-46-4)

    Submitted:

    September 16, 2004

    Decided:

    September 21, 2004

    Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Otis O. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Dean C. Berry, NEWPORT NEWS


    SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK CO., Newport News, Virginia; Kenneth
    Michael Reiss, NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Arlington, Virginia;
    David I. Goldman, Associate General Counsel, Daniel Martin Kovalik,
    UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; James J.
    Vergara, Jr., VERGARA & ASSOCIATES, Hopewell, Virginia, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Otis

    O.

    Edwards

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying his motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his


    employment discrimination suit.
    find no reversible error.
    stated

    by

    the

    Shipbldg. &
    We

    dispense

    district

    We have reviewed the record and

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons


    court.

    See

    Edwards

    v.

    Newport

    News

    Dry Dock Co., No. CA-97-46-4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 2004).
    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

    - 3 -

    You might also like