Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Szabo v. East Carolina University, 07-1919 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1919 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 18, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1919 LASZLO SZABO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:07-cv-00010-BO) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Laszlo Szabo, Appellant P
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1919 LASZLO SZABO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:07-cv-00010-BO) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 18, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Laszlo Szabo, Appellant Pro Se. John Payne Scherer, II, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Laszlo Szabo appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss his employment discrimination claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (2000), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634 (2000), and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. See Szabo v. East Carolina Univ., No. 4:07-cv- 00010-BO (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 1, 2007; entered Aug. 2, 2007). 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