Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Moore v. Dept of the Navy, 04-2519 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2519 Visitors: 21
Filed: Jan. 23, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2519 ROGERS MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Hansford T. Johnson, Acting Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-154-7-F) Submitted: January 6, 2006 Decided: January 23, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubl
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2519 ROGERS MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Hansford T. Johnson, Acting Secretary of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-154-7-F) Submitted: January 6, 2006 Decided: January 23, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest J. Wright, Jacksonville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Joshua B. Royster, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rogers Moore appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant in his action alleging claims of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A § 2000e et seq.; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et seq.; and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 791 et seq. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Moore v. Department of the Navy, No. 03-CV-154 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 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