Filed: May 15, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2409 AUGUST WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1263) Submitted: April 30, 2001 Decided: May 15, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John M. Clifford, Pete
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2409 AUGUST WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1263) Submitted: April 30, 2001 Decided: May 15, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John M. Clifford, Peter..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2409
AUGUST WALKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-1263)
Submitted: April 30, 2001 Decided: May 15, 2001
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John M. Clifford, Peter F. Butcher, CLIFFORD, LYONS & GARDE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. R. Mark Dare, Jennifer J. Dacey,
REED, SMITH, HAZEL & THOMAS, L.L.P., Falls Church, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
August Walker appeals the district court’s order granting
Lockheed Martin Corporation’s motion for summary judgment in this
employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. We note
in particular that Walker legally suffered no adverse employment
action. See Boone v. Goldin,
178 F.3d 253, 255-56 (4th Cir. 1999);
Page v. Bolger,
645 F.2d 227, 233 (4th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Walker v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. CA-00-1263 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29,
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