Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Johnson v. Metro Washington Airports Auth, 06-1287 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1287 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 24, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1287 DAVID W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cv-00281-CMH) Submitted: January 9, 2007 Decided: January 24, 2007 Before TRAXLER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1287 DAVID W. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cv-00281-CMH) Submitted: January 9, 2007 Decided: January 24, 2007 Before TRAXLER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adrian V. Nelson, II, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Morris Kletzkin, Mark D. Crawford, Katrina E. Mulligan, FRIEDLANDER, MISLER, SLOAN, KLETZKIN & OCHSMAN, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C.; Joseph E. Kalet, Associate General Counsel, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David W. Johnson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to his employer on claims of race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and a claim that his employer violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by refusing to continue a contract of employment based on race. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Johnson v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, No. 05-281 (E.D. Va. January 24, 2006). 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