Narrative Opinion Summary
Roger A. Johnson, Jr. appeals the district court's dismissal of his employment discrimination lawsuit and the denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons it provided. The case citation is Johnson v. Next Day Blinds Corp., No. 1:09-cv-02069-WMN, with decisions dated November 1, 2012, and February 21, 2013. The court opted not to hold oral argument, concluding that the existing materials sufficiently presented the facts and legal issues, and that oral argument would not contribute to the decision-making process. The ruling is affirmed. Unpublished opinions such as this one do not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review for Reversible Errorsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court assessed the district court's dismissal of the employment discrimination lawsuit and found no reversible error, thereby affirming the lower court's decision.
Reasoning: The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision for the reasons it provided.
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The denial of the appellant's motion to alter or amend the judgment was upheld as the appellate court did not find any grounds to reverse the decision.
Reasoning: Roger A. Johnson, Jr. appeals the district court's dismissal of his employment discrimination lawsuit and the denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment.
Oral Argument in Appellate Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court decided against holding oral arguments, determining that the existing written materials were sufficient for resolving the appeal.
Reasoning: The court opted not to hold oral argument, concluding that the existing materials sufficiently presented the facts and legal issues, and that oral argument would not contribute to the decision-making process.
Precedential Value of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling in this case, being unpublished, does not serve as binding precedent within the circuit.
Reasoning: Unpublished opinions such as this one do not serve as binding precedent in the circuit.