Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ward v. Men's Warehouse Inc, 99-2397 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2397 Visitors: 32
Filed: Mar. 14, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2397 WILLIAM P. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE MEN’S WAREHOUSE, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-1291-H) Submitted: February 29, 2000 Decided: March 14, 2000 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William P. Ward, Appel
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2397 WILLIAM P. WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE MEN’S WAREHOUSE, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-1291-H) Submitted: February 29, 2000 Decided: March 14, 2000 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William P. Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Sidney Gordon Leech, GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH & GRAY, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William P. Ward appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to The Men’s Warehouse, Inc., in his employment discrimination action and denying Ward’s motions to suppress his deposition and to order responses to his interrogatories. 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. See Ward v. Men’s Warehouse, Inc., No. CA-98-1291- H (D. Md. Sept. 14, 1999). 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 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer