Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dalton v. School Board Norfolk, 00-1131 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1131 Visitors: 76
Filed: Aug. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1131 BRADLY G. DALTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK, Defendant - Appellee, and ROY NICHOLS, Former Superintendent; JOHN SMITH, School Administrator; PAMELA RIDDICK, School Administrator; CATHY LASSITER, School Administrator; ANN HALL, School Administrator, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, Dist
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1131 BRADLY G. DALTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCHOOL BOARD OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK, Defendant - Appellee, and ROY NICHOLS, Former Superintendent; JOHN SMITH, School Administrator; PAMELA RIDDICK, School Administrator; CATHY LASSITER, School Administrator; ANN HALL, School Administrator, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-98-975-2) Submitted: July 14, 2000 Decided: August 1, 2000 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bradly G. Dalton, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel R. Hagemeister, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bradly G. Dalton appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the School Board of the City of Norfolk in this action alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the rea- soning of the district court. See Dalton v. School Bd. of Norfolk, No. CA-98-975-2 (E.D. Va. 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