Filed: May 23, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1237 GLEN HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CUMMINS APPLIANCE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 00-1405-S) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 23, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glen Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Radding, Russell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1237 GLEN HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CUMMINS APPLIANCE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 00-1405-S) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 23, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glen Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Radding, Russell G..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1237 GLEN HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CUMMINS APPLIANCE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 00-1405-S) Submitted: May 17, 2001 Decided: May 23, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glen Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Radding, Russell Gable Alion, Jr., ADELBERG, RUDOW, DORF, HENDLER & SAMETH, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Glen Hall appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for Defendant in this employment discrimination action. 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 Hall v. Cummins Appliance, No. CA-00- 1405-S (D. Md. Jan. 9, 2001). We dispense with oral argument be- cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
