107 F. 3d 867 - Stovall Stovall v. Pepsi Cola
107 F3d 867 Stovall Stovall v. Pepsi Cola
107 F.3d 867
Lester STOVALL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
Lynda S. STOVALL, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, et al, Plaintiff,
v.
PEPSI COLA DCLP, Defendant-Appellee,
and
Noel Smith, Business Agent, Beverage Drivers Union Local #
67; Stephen McBride, Secretary, Beverage Drivers Union
Local # 67; Willie Boyce, Human Resources Manager, Pepsi
Cola DCLP; Sonny Brooken, Chief Financial Officer, Pepsi
Cola DCLP; Gavin Saunders, Warehouse Manager, Pepsi Cola
DCLP; Paul O'Connor, Supervisor, Pepsi Cola DCLP; Jim
Schultz, General Manager, Pepsi Cola DCLP; International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO Beverage Drivers Local
Union # 67, Defendants.
No. 96-2649.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 1997.
Decided Feb. 25, 1997.
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Lester Stovall, Appellant Pro Se.
Stephen Daniel Graeff, Phillip Matthew Schwartz, CARR, MORRIS & GRAEFF, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,* Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Advertisement
Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1994), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Stovall v. Pepsi Cola DCLP, No. CA-95-303-PJM (D.Md. Sept. 25, 1996). 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.
Senior Judge Butzner did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d)