Rivers v. Avis Construction Co. , 31 F. App'x 284 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-1111
    MICHAEL KEITH RIVERS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    AVIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED; EQUAL
    EMPLOYMENT      OPPORTUNITY      COMMISSION;
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Department of Labor
    and Industry; THE DEPARTMENT FOR RIGHTS OF
    VIRGINIANS WITH DISABILITIES,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
    (CA-01-749-7)
    Submitted:   March 21, 2002                 Decided:   March 28, 2002
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael Keith Rivers, Appellant Pro Se. Linda Davis Frith, FRITH,
    ANDERSON & PEAKE, Roanoke, Virginia; Caren Ilene Friedman, EQUAL
    EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C.; Catherine F.
    Hutchins, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Josephs, Jr., OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael    Keith   Rivers   appeals   the   district   court’s   order
    dismissing his complaint alleging a violation of the Americans with
    Disabilities Act, see 
    42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213
     (West 1995 & Supp.
    2001), by his employer, Avis Construction, and negligence on the
    part of the remaining Appellees in investigating his claims.             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.     See Rivers v. Avis Construction Co., CA-01-
    749-1 (W.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2002).         Additionally, we deny Rivers’
    motions to subpoena all parties involved and for production of
    documents.     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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-1111

Citation Numbers: 31 F. App'x 284

Judges: Michael, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 3/28/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023