Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Howard v. US Army, 04-1921 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1921 Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 23, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1921 LYNN HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES ARMY; DONALD RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense; KATHRYN R. REPPERGER; IRENE MORRISON; MARK KARRAKER; USA POSTAL GROUP EUROPE; US GOVERNMENT; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-03-1368-1) Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decid
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1921 LYNN HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES ARMY; DONALD RUMSFELD, Secretary of Defense; KATHRYN R. REPPERGER; IRENE MORRISON; MARK KARRAKER; USA POSTAL GROUP EUROPE; US GOVERNMENT; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-03-1368-1) Submitted: November 18, 2004 Decided: November 23, 2004 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lynn Howard, Appellant Pro Se. William Kenneth Witherspoon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; Dennis Edward Szybala, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Matthew Paul Ruzicka, UNITED STATES ARMY, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lynn Howard appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 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 Howard v. United States Army, No. CA-03-1368-1 (E.D. Va. filed June 7 & entered June 9, 2004). We deny the motion filed by attorney George R. Royer to appear on Howard’s behalf as counsel pro hac vice as moot. 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