Filed: Apr. 17, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2350 JAMES SEMME FRAZIER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD DANZIG, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-99-1973-A) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Semme
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2350 JAMES SEMME FRAZIER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD DANZIG, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-99-1973-A) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Semme F..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2350 JAMES SEMME FRAZIER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHARD DANZIG, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-99-1973-A) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Semme Frazier, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: James Semme Frazier appeals the district court’s order grant- ing Secretary Richard J. Danzig of the Department of the Navy his motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Frazier’s motion for a stay of the pro- ceedings. We further find that Frazier failed to establish that the legitimate non-discriminatory reason given for his removal was a pretext for discrimination. Accordingly, we affirm. 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