From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jarvis v. Fedex Office & Print Serv. Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Aug 2, 2011
442 F. App'x 71 (4th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 11-1214

08-02-2011

DEREK N. JARVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FEDEX OFFICE & PRINT SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.

Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. David Samuel Panzer, Eric C. Rowe, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:08-cv-01694-DKC)

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. David Samuel Panzer, Eric C. Rowe, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Derek N. Jarvis appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider and granting summary judgment against him in his civil action. On appeal, Jarvis contests the denial of his motion to reconsider the court's earlier denial of his spoliation of evidence claim, and the denial of his claim of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jarvis v. FedEx Office & Print Servs., Inc., No. 8:08-cv-01694-DKC (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2011). 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


Summaries of

Jarvis v. Fedex Office & Print Serv. Inc.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Aug 2, 2011
442 F. App'x 71 (4th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

Jarvis v. Fedex Office & Print Serv. Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DEREK N. JARVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FEDEX OFFICE & PRINT SERVICES…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 2, 2011

Citations

442 F. App'x 71 (4th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

Wonderland Nurserygoods Co. v. Thorley Indus., LLC

Dr. Clark's expert report is not a pleading, nor for that matter a brief or affidavit, and therefore cannot…

M-Edge Int'l Corp. v. LifeWorks Tech. Grp. LLC

Nor do their contents, even arguably, warrant striking under Rule 12(f). See, e.g., Jarvis v. FedEx Office &…