Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Brandon v. City of Richmond VA, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    Timothy Brandon and William Dew filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the City of Richmond and several city officials. The case was heard by a magistrate judge, who ruled in favor of the defendants. Brandon and Dew appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found no errors in the magistrate judge's decision. As such, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the defendants.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-09-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-2412

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Timothy Brandon and William Dew filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the City of Richmond and several city officials. The case was heard by a magistrate judge, who ruled in favor of the defendants. Brandon and Dew appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found no errors in the magistrate judge's decision. As such, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the defendants.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views2 pages

    Brandon v. City of Richmond VA, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Timothy Brandon and William Dew filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the City of Richmond and several city officials. The case was heard by a magistrate judge, who ruled in favor of the defendants. Brandon and Dew appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found no errors in the magistrate judge's decision. As such, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the defendants.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-2412

    TIMOTHY S. BRANDON; WILLIAM L. DEW,


    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    versus
    CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA; CALVIN JAMISON,
    City Manager for the City of Richmond; JACK
    MCELFISH, Fire Chief of the City of Richmond;
    JOHN TUNSTALL, Division Fire Chief for the
    City of Richmond; LARRY TUNSTALL, Division
    Fire Chief for the City of Richmond,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Dennis W. Dohnal, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-00-874-3)

    Submitted:

    September 12, 2002

    Decided:

    September 23, 2002

    Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Robert P.
    Richmond,
    Assistant
    Richmond,

    Geary, Richmond, Virginia; William S. Francis, Jr.,


    Virginia, for Appellants.
    Beverly A. Burton, Senior
    City Attorney, Keith A. May, Assistant City Attorney,
    Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy S. Brandon and William L. Dew appeal the magistrate
    judges order denying relief on their employment discrimination
    action.

    We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judges

    opinion and find no reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm the

    judgment of the magistrate judge.* See Brandon v. City of Richmond,


    No. CA-00-874-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2001).

    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

    The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate


    judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (2000).
    2

    You might also like