Case ID: f-appx_172/html/0523-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lee Kent HEMPFLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LM COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED, a Kentucky Corporation; LM Communications of South Carolina, Incorporated, a Kentucky Corporation; LM Communications II of South Carolina, Incorporated, a Kentucky Corporation, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-1987.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 23, 2006.
    Decided: March 27, 2006.
    Lee Kent Hempfling, Appellant Pro Se. Greg Horton, Buist, Moore, Smythe, McGee, PA, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Lee Kent Hempfling appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Hempfling’s employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hempfling v. LM Commc’ns, Inc., No. CA-04-1373-2-PMD (D.S.C. Aug. 31, 2005). 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