Filed: Mar. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2440 WILLIAM WHITTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION; CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees, DAVID A. BELL, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1362-A) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2440 WILLIAM WHITTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION; CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees, DAVID A. BELL, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1362-A) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2440 WILLIAM WHITTMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STATE OF VIRGINIA; VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION; CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, Defendants - Appellees, DAVID A. BELL, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1362-A) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Whittman, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Osborne Barnard, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Whittman appeals the district court’s order dismissing his discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Whittman v. Virginia, No. CA-02-1362-A (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 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
