Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Zhang v. Computer Science, 05-2015 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-2015 Visitors: 52
Filed: Apr. 05, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2015 ZHENLU ZHANG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 04-434-8-DKC) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 5, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2015 ZHENLU ZHANG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 04-434-8-DKC) Submitted: March 30, 2006 Decided: April 5, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zhenlu Zhang, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Adam Platt, J.C. Miller, SCHMELTZER, APTAKER & SHEPARD, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Edward Lee Isler, Steven William Ray, RAY & ISLER, P.C., Vienna, Virginia; Larry Robert Seegull, Damon Loren Krieger, DLA PIPER RUDNICK GRAY CARY U.S. L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Zhenlu Zhang appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Science & Technology Corporation and Computer Sciences Corporation, and dismissing Zhang’s employment discrimination and retaliation action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Zhang v. Science & Technology Corp., No. CA-04-434-8-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 10, 2005). 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