James E. Hopper, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the Ryland Group, Inc.; Neil Brown, Defendants-appellees, 902 F.2d 28 (4th Cir. 1990)
Annotate this CaseAppeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Chief District Judge. (C/A No. 90-51-C-C-P)
James E. Hopper, appellant pro se.
W.D.N.C.
AFFIRMED.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
James E. Hopper appeals from the district court's order dismissing his suit against his former employer for injuries sustained in the course of his employment, for failure to provide medical treatment, and for denying benefits provided for under defendant's benefit plans. 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.* Hopper v. Ryland Group, Inc., C/A No. 90-51-C-C-P (W.D.N.C. Feb. 23, 1990). 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
Hopper's claim was properly dismissed since his exclusive remedy was under the North Carolina Workmen's Compensation Act, N.C.Gen.Stat. Sec. 97-10.1. See Barrino v. Radiator Specialty Co., 315 N.C. 500, 340 S.E.2d 295 (1986); Stack v. Mecklenburg County, 86 N.C.App. 550, 359 S.E.2d 16, reh. denied, 321 N.C. 121, 361 S.E.2d 597 (1982). To the extent that Hopper's claims are grounded in tort or contract, we note that he has neither alleged diversity jurisdiction, nor does he appear to be of diverse citizenship from his employer. Accordingly, the district court was without jurisdiction to hear these claims
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
