Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Evans v. Potter, 04-1748 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1748 Visitors: 21
Filed: May 12, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1748 RECARDO W. EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA- 02-4043-RDB) Submitted: April 29, 2005 Decided: May 12, 2005 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ral
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1748 RECARDO W. EVANS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA- 02-4043-RDB) Submitted: April 29, 2005 Decided: May 12, 2005 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ralph T. Byrd, Laytonsville, Maryland, for Appellant. Allen F. Loucks, United States Attorney, Kristine L. Sendek-Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Recardo W. Evans appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this action alleging disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and denying Evans’ motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Evans v. Potter, No. CA-02-4043-RDB (D. Md. Sept. 9, 2003, and May 7, 2004). 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