Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
John Millard HURD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARDINAL LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
John Millard Hurd brought this action against Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation (“Cardinal”), asserting that Cardinal subjected Hurd to prohibited medical examinations and disability-related inquiries (“medical inquiry claim”), and then unlawfully refused to hire him to fill a motor carrier operator position (“failure-to-hire claim”), in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. The district court granted Hurd summary judgment on the medical inquiry claim and granted Cardinal summary judgment on the failure-to-hire claim, and the parties filed motions for attorney's fees and costs. The district court denied Cardinal's motion for fees and costs and granted in part and denied in part Hurd's motion.
We have reviewed the record and have considered the parties’ arguments and find no reversible error. See Jones v. Southpeak Interactive Corp. of Del., 777 F.3d 658, 675 (4th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that this court will only reverse an attorney's fees “award if the district court is clearly wrong or has committed an error of law” because “we recognize that our review of the record, no matter how careful, cannot substitute for the district court's close and intimate knowledge of the efforts expended and the value of the services rendered” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Hurd v. Cardinal Logistics Mgmt. Corp., No. 7:17-cv-00319-EKD-RSB, 2019 WL 6718111 (W.D. Va. Dec. 10, 2019). 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
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-1029
Decided: November 18, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)