Williams v. Encompass

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1682
JOSEPH M. WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ENCOMPASS; CSX CORPORATION; AMR SERVICES
CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 97-1979
JOSEPH M. WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ENCOMPASS; CSX CORPORATION; AMR SERVICES
CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-96-563-5-BR)
Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: November 10, 1998
Before ERVIN and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph M. Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Bruce Cohen,
Agnes Maria Schipper, MOORE & VAN ALLEN, Durham, North Carolina,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Joseph M. Williams, Jr., appeals from the district court’s
order denying his motion for an extension of time for service and
motion to additional discovery,* and the court’s order granting
Encompass’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing Williams’
claims of age discrimination and retaliatory discharge. 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. Williams v. Encompass, No. CA-96-563-5-BR (E.D.N.C.
Apr. 30 & June 20, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
*
Although Williams’ appeal as to the district court’s order
disposing of these claims was interlocutory at the time of filing,
the district court’s entry of judgment prior to consideration of
the appeal confers jurisdiction on this court under the doctrine of
cumulative finality. See Equipment Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse
Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992).
3