The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
21-1150•Mitchell L. Harris v. KENT ENGLAND, Store Manager of Giant Foods
21-1150Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 29, 2021
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1150
MITCHELL L. HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KENT ENGLAND, Store Manager of Giant Foods; BERNARD NIMMONS,
Produce Department Supervisor of Giant Foods; TORA TOFT, HR Coordinator;
DONELL WILLIAMS, Direct Supervisor; DR. AMBAR MATTA, General
Surgeon; JAMES SPENCER, Store & Department Manager; TYLER LAZENBY,
Store & Department Manager; TOM ROGERS, UFCW 400 Union Representative;
SADIA U. RAHMAN, MD, QSAPMA, QMHCM; BARRY F. WALTER, MD,
FACS; ANNE W. BARRERA, Legal Assistant; KEISHA MCCANTS, Paralegal
Assistant; RUSTY, Paralegal Assistant; BERNARD G. FEORD, VSB 28821,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:20-cv-01509-LMB-MSN)
Submitted: August 30, 2021 Decided: September 29, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Mitchell Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Mitchell L. Harris appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harris v.
England, No. 1:20-cv-01509-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. Jan. 26, 2021). We deny Harris’
motion for default judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.