Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Murray v. Henderson, 01-1248 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1248 Visitors: 21
Filed: Jul. 09, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1248 TYRONE E. MURRAY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. No. 01-1249 TYRONE E. MURRAY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1248 TYRONE E. MURRAY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. No. 01-1249 TYRONE E. MURRAY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-00- 358-L, CA-01-159-L) Submitted: June 20, 2001 Decided: July 9, 2001 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone E. Murray, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Tawana Elaine Davis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Tyrone E. Murray, Sr., appeals two district court orders. In Appeal No. 01-1248, Murray appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Murray’s claim for constructive discharge. This claim was dismissed as untimely. In Appeal No. 01-1249, Murray appeals the district court’s dismissal of eleven claims. The district court dismissed the first eight claims due to Murray’s failure to timely pursue administrative remedies. The district court dismissed his remaining three claims based on Murray’s failure to establish an adverse employment action. We have reviewed the record, the dis- trict court’s memorandum opinion, and the district court’s orders in each case, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Murray v. Henderson, Nos. CA-00-358-L; CA-01-159-L (D. Md. filed Feb. 7, 2001, entered Feb. 8, 2001; filed Feb. 8, 2001, entered Feb. 9, 2001). We dis- pense 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 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer