Filed: Apr. 18, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1089 EDWARD C. HILL, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM S. COHEN, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-1373-A) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1089 EDWARD C. HILL, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM S. COHEN, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-1373-A) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1089 EDWARD C. HILL, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM S. COHEN, Secretary, Department of Defense, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-1373-A) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 18, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward C. Hill, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Martin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Edward C. Hill, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dis- missing his action alleging employment discrimination. 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 Hill v. Cohen, No. CA-00-1373-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 7, 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
