Timothy Williams v. Force Protection Industries In, No. 09-2033 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2033 TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FORCE PROTECTION INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED; HOWARD EISENHUT, individually and as an employee of Force Protection Industries Incorporated; SHELIA BOYD, individually and as an employee of Force Protection Industries Incorporated; VANESSA LADSON, individually and as an employee of Force Protection Industries Incorporated; HELEN GEARHEARD, individually and as an employee of Force Protection Industries Incorporated; BRENDA VALENTINE, individually and as an employee of Force Protection Industries Incorporated, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (2:07-cv-03679-MBS) Submitted: April 7, 2010 Decided: April 23, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Michael D. Carrouth, FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Timothy accepting the Williams appeals recommendation of the the district court s magistrate judge order and granting summary judgment to Defendants in this action alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and raising related claims under state law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williams v. Force Protection Industries Inc., No. 2:07- cv-03679-MBS (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2009). 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 3

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.