Smith v. New York Times Co
Smith v. New York Times Co
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1795
SAMUEL L. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, a New York Corpora- tion; THE SPARTANBURG HERALD-JOURNAL, a South Carolina Corporation,
Defendants - Appellees, and
MIKE TOWERY; EARL BARBER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-2300-7-20AK)
Submitted: October 20, 1997 Decided: November 12, 1997
Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel L. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bernard Lindemann, JACKSON, LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Appel- lees' motion for costs associated with defending against Appel-
lant's employment discrimination action. 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. Smith v. New York Times Co, et al, No. CA-94-2300-7-20AK (D.S.C. May 19, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished