Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Matthews v. White, 03-1025 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1025 Visitors: 249
Filed: Jun. 03, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1025 RALPH MATTHEWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS E. WHITE, Secretary of the Department of the Army, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-568-A) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 3, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ra
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1025 RALPH MATTHEWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THOMAS E. WHITE, Secretary of the Department of the Army, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-02-568-A) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 3, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Celia Ballow, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ralph Matthews appeals the district court’s order entering partial judgment in favor of the Defendant on his racial discrimination claim and dismissing Matthews’ retaliation, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination claims, in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Matthews v. White, No. CA-02- 568-A (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 12, 2002; entered Nov. 15, 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
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