Filed: Nov. 13, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1860 STEVEN M. FANGMANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1958-S) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per cur
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1860 STEVEN M. FANGMANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1958-S) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1860 STEVEN M. FANGMANN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-1958-S) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven M. Fangmann, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Spencer Saudek, HOGAN & HARTSON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Steven M. Fangmann appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in his civil action in which he claimed, inter alia, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2002). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Fangmann v. Georgetown University Medical Ctr., No. CA-01-1958-S (D. Md. July 8, 2002). 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