Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Shah v. Kukes, 05-1124 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1124 Visitors: 38
Filed: May 19, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1124 SYED Z. SHAH, Plaintiff - Appellant, and TALLAT SHAH, wife, Plaintiff, versus SCOTT KUKES, LTC; DAVID LAMM, COL; PAUL T. DAVIS, LTC; GREGORY ALLEN ARMSTRONG, Special Agent; KEVIN BENEFIELD, CW2, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-390-1) Submitted: April 29, 2005 Decided: May 19, 2005 B
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1124 SYED Z. SHAH, Plaintiff - Appellant, and TALLAT SHAH, wife, Plaintiff, versus SCOTT KUKES, LTC; DAVID LAMM, COL; PAUL T. DAVIS, LTC; GREGORY ALLEN ARMSTRONG, Special Agent; KEVIN BENEFIELD, CW2, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-390-1) Submitted: April 29, 2005 Decided: May 19, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Syed Z. Shah, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, Ralph Andrew Price, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Syed Z. Shah appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to all remaining claims, and denying Shah’s complaint of employment discrimination based on race, color, and national origin filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Shah v. Kukes, No. CA-04-390-1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 21, 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 - 3 -
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