Filed: Nov. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1724 MARC S. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARDON, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Merit Concrete, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 99-2436-CCB) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1724 MARC S. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARDON, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Merit Concrete, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 99-2436-CCB) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc S..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1724 MARC S. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARDON, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Merit Concrete, Incorporated, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA- 99-2436-CCB) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc S. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Norman Robert Buchsbaum, Christo- pher Mark Feldenzer, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marc S. Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action against his former employer. 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 insofar as it dismissed Smith’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Smith v. Bardon, Inc., No. CA-99-2436-CCB (D. Md. May 8, 2000). 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