U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1994

Ned N. Cary, Jr. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 95, Affiliated With International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Ned N. Cary, Jr. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 95, Affiliated With International Brotherhood of Teamsters
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided May 4, 1994
23 F.3d 400; 150 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3022; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18456; 1994 WL 168460 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Ned N. Cary, Jr. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 95, Affiliated With International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Opinion

23 F.3d 400
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Ned N. CARY, Jr., Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 95, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Defendant Appellee.

No. 93-1497.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 29, 1993.
Decided: May 4, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (CA-93-8-NN)

Ned N. Cary, Jr., appellant pro se.

Jonathan Gans Axelrod, Beins, Axelrod, Osborne, Mooney & Green, Washington, D.C., for appellee.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Ned N. Cary, Jr., appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendant in this action challenging Defendant's failure to pursue a labor grievance on Cary's behalf. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cary v. Teamsters Local 95, No. CA-93-8-NN (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 1993). 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. The Motion for Hearing, as supplemented, is denied.

2

AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.