Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Murray v. Herman, Sec, 00-1513 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1513 Visitors: 73
Filed: Jul. 20, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1513 TYRONE E. MURRAY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALEXIS M. HERMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Labor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-2760-L) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 20, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1513 TYRONE E. MURRAY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALEXIS M. HERMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Labor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-2760-L) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 20, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone E. Murray, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Tyrone Emanual Murray, Sr., appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in his com- plaint seeking review of the Employee’s Compensation Appeals Board decision affirming the decision of the Office Worker’s Compensation Program. 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 Murray v. Herman, No. CA- 99-2760-L (D. Md. Jan. 10, 2000). 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 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